text:
Do Buddhism and Atheism contradict each other?
Can a person be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time? Or are some beliefs in deities too important to the practice of Buddhism?

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We've put together some tips for new users on asking questions on the site. Also we have a page of useful resources that you may also find useful. Best wishes and I hope you have a positive experience on the site.

You don't have to believe in deities all the way until you start seeing them everywhere ;)

Possible duplicate How compatible are the beliefs of atheists and Buddhism?

There's something called "Secular Buddhism" in which, according to Wikipedia,

Within the framework of secular Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine may be stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that can't be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc.

After removing these elements of doctrine ('beliefs'), a lot remains; for example:

None of the elements in this set of Dhamma Lists depends on any supernatural doctrine (except perhaps the "four stages of enlightenment" which presupposes rebirth)
Ditto the doctrines listed in the answers to What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? (except perhaps the "supernatural powers").

So I'm inclined to agree with other answers. Sankha's answer ("you can't really be called a Buddhist") I would modify slightly: to say instead, for example, "you can't really be called an 'orthodox' Buddhist".
People tend to see "going for refuge" (and not explicitly "beliefs in deities") as the defining difference between "a Buddhist" and "not a Buddhist".
Even so it's also more-or-less possible to practice Buddhism without taking refuge.

Another possibility is that there's a sutta called the Kalama Sutta, which famously says,

Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.

The sutta then goes on to talk about a core aspect of Buddhism, i.e. whether greed causes suffering.
Still the part about "don't go by reports" is often interpreted as license to believe only what you know, what you can verify, what you have verified. So even an orthodox Buddhist view might be that you can (perhaps should) acknowledge devas etc. as a matter of faith, but that you're not required to. If you classified "belief in devas" as "doctrine" and as "hypothesis", and practice Buddhism, then you may eventually develop the ability to determine the truth of that doctrine for yourself.

Within the canonical texts of the various schools of Buddhism there are various beings that roughly correspond to that of deities, in particular Devas and Brahmas. Both Devas and Brahmas are particular types of beings who have taken very high rebirths as a result of their good Karma. They have very long lifespans and many wonderful benefits.
However they aren't the objects of reverence that they are in other religions. Although one might pray to or request one of these beings for help in worldly matters it is understood that these beings are rather limited, and they eventually die like any other being.
In practical terms rejecting the existence of such beings doesn't really present major problems as it isn't an essential doctrinal teaching. One can be a practicing Buddhist without believing in them.

There is the Secular Buddhist movement that would be very compatible with atheistic beliefs. Secular Buddhists tend to reject any supernatural beliefs within Buddhism in favour of pragmatic or evidence based solutions. A good (short) text to look at if you are interested is Buddhism without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor.
Of course you could say 'Aha but these aren't real Buddhists'. But then you could take that attitude to any group of Buddhists that you find a bit unpalatable and to my mind this is getting towards the No True Scotsman fallacy. In short, if you identify as an atheist then it is perfectly possible to practice as a (secular) Buddhist and be part of a community identifies as both atheists and Buddhists and feel the same way as you do.

It's not that they aren't' "real" buddhists, they are not buddhists in any way.

@Davor which is an opinion that you are entitled to but an opinion nontheless. If you want to ask whether secular buddhists are 'real' buddhists then I would encourage you to ask the question on the site. It could be seen as inflammatory which we don't encourage on the site but I would be happy to assit with editing or formulation of the question as I think it is an interesting subject if we could think of a neutral way to ask it. Metta

I don't want to ask anything. Just because someone says they are something doesn't make it so. I can call myself a unicorn, will you agree with me?

@Davor Same argument works for your statement "the are not buddhists in any  way". Just because you say something IS NOT something doesn't make it true in any way. Use your own logic, bro. ^^

@CrabBucket - but I'm not asking whether they are "real" buddhists.

I'll take an almost certainly unpopular tack here, and say that atheism enhances Buddhism. What I mean by that, is that atheists tend to reject authority in favor of personal experience and investigation, and I think this goes hand-in-hand with the Buddha's teaching. I believe Buddha would be pleased if we critically examined the esoteric "supernatural" aspects taught by some Buddhists schools, and to determine the veracity of them for ourselves, through practice. I actually am of the opinion that the tenets of Buddhism, including kamma, punabbhava, and even Buddhist cosmology, fit into an atheistic viewpoint. To me, "atheism" is a particular way of looking at the mechanisms by which various things occur.
I remind you, this is an unpopular viewpoint.

Unpopular perhaps but original I think. +1

One can be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time, if being atheist just means rejecting the concept of an almighty, all compassionate, creator God.
But if you mean rejecting swarga(higher realms), niraya(lower realms) and Samsaric existences, you can't really be called a Buddhist as you are rejecting the teachings of the Buddha. But you can still practice Buddhism at a certain level.

Atheism is a position that rejects existence of all kinds of gods and deities, not only the existence of an almighty God of the middle-east monotheistic religions.

But I don't think it rejects the existence of beings higher than humans who are not immortal.

I would say that to a vast majority of atheists taxonomy of all types and categories of supernatural beings that are posited by various religions is a moot task. Atheists often subscribe to some form of naturalism and disbelieve in anything more than the natural world that is accessible to our senses and to the natural science.
(If you would excuse a bad pun, I saw in a zoo that giraffes exist and they are in fact higher than humans.)

So by that definition, atheists should reject the existence of aliens too. :)
Higher in the sense like humans have a higher standard of living compared to animals.

I would say that to the degree that we can speculate about possible extraterrestrial life the consensus is that any such life forms would be bound by the same laws of nature that applies to me and to you. Humans sent spacecraft to several other worlds (today's news: to Pluto too!), and the laws of physics turned out to be the same on each of them.

Yes, the gods in Buddhism are bound by the same laws of nature: impermanence, suffering and being uncontrollable

One of the primary tenets in Buddhism, across nearly all forms of Buddhism is part of this list:

Whether Theravada or Mahayana, we do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will.

So, strictly speaking, one may believe and practice a form of Buddhism, and also believe and practice a form of Atheism without conflict.

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

The other answers have covered this from the Buddhist side, I'll try to answer from the Atheist side.
"Atheism" in general is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.  It's a convenient label for an absence that is sometimes treated as a 'thing'. In this respect it is like "vacuum" (absence of matter), "dark" (absence of light), or "freedom" (absence of restriction).  "Atheism" is the absence of theism (Belief in one or more gods).  Atheists include people who have some idea of what a god is and believe none exist, people who think the word "god" is meaningless, and people who are unsure if gods exist and any other set of beliefs that does not include "at least one god exists".
So you'll pretty much have to decide if any of the entities claimed to exist in Buddhism (or in any particular variant thereof) are "gods".  I'm in the "god" is a nonsense word camp myself ("theological noncognitism" if you really want the formal term for it) so I think the whole question is pointless.  You may disagree.
"Atheist" is commonly conflated with other terms like Freethinker/Skeptic, Irreligious, and Agnostic.  In case that's what you are after, I'll address them.
Agnosticism is about knowledge rather than belief, and it can be applied to things other than the existence of gods.  Knowledge in this sense is belief justified by evidence and reason.  Belief without such justification is faith.  Of course whether something thought to be justification really is makes things complicated in a way that's way beyond the scope of this answer.  It's entirely possible to believe in a god while recognizing that that belief lacks justification.  Many Christians even claim faith to be superior to knowledge.  My understanding is that Buddhists generally see faith as less desirable than knowledge, but an acceptable alternative where knowledge is unavailable.
Freethinkers and Skeptics are concerned with making our beliefs as close to reality as we can, no matter what that turns out to be. We want to verify those beliefs, and try to keep reverifying in case we made a mistake.  We seek knowledge and reject faith and dogma.  Ideally, we prefer to admit ignorance over clinging to a belief that lacks proper justification.  Although this is distinct from "atheism" it is the group most likely to self identify as "atheist".  Buddhism makes unjustifed claims (Existence of a soul, reincarnation of those souls, etc) and so is not compatible with freethought.  Were all the claims to be justified by sufficient evidence, this would change. (Ideally, all free thinkers would then accept the claims of fact made by Buddhism.  We might still reject the ethical claims.)
Irreligious just means "not religious" and the same way atheist means "not theist".  Buddhism is a religion and so, obviously you can't be Buddhist and irreligious at the same time.  There is sometimes argument over exactly what constitutes a religion, and Buddhism is probably more amenable to this sort of semantic wiggling than many other religions (see the 'Secular Buddhism' described in some other answers)
Naturalism (In the context of Metaphysics and Epistemology) is the philosophy that the world behaves in a way that we can understand in terms of rules which we can then use to make predictions.  Where Freethought is the position that we should seek knowledge, naturalism is the belief that we have a chance (in principle) of succeeding.  That which can not be understood this way is "supernatural".  Many of Buddhism's claims seem to be supernatural and so incompatible with naturalism.  Claims about the supernatural also mean that sufficient justification for those claims is never possible, so this would make it impossible to ever be compatible with Freethought.

Welcome to the site. Although you wrote that Buddhism makes unjustifed claims (Existence of a soul, reincarnation of those souls, etc) and so is not compatible with freethought, the statement, that "Buddhism claims existence of a soul", is contradicted by the articles on this page, Egolessness (Anatta),  as well as elsewhere in the canon. Though it may be a long page, with several articles, a search of it will highlight places where it mentions the word "soul".

@ChrisW - it's just semantics. Is there anything to a human besides the physical body? If yes, that is a soul.

@Davor Yes, there are things to a human besides the physical body, e.g. there are sense-impressions, consciousness, etc., but that's not a soul.

@ChrisW - those are biological functions of the body. Aaaaaand again, you're nitpicking the wording, instead of focusing on what matters. Is there anything left of you after you die besides the dead decomposing body? Does anything continue your existence? That would be a soul.

Well, you can call buddhism a religion, I can see it as some psychological practice.

Well, my body continues after my existence albeit in a decomposing form.  Does that make it a soul?  Hair persists for a long time, but it won't collect my pension check.  The dust of my bones doesn't get my social security number.  In the same way, my karmic continuum doesn't keep my name, my family wouldn't recognize my volition, and my skandas wouldn't be very good at my job.  All of them would be useless without my consciousness or body.  Where's there a soul in all of that?

I don't see ChrisW as nitpicking here.  What he lays out is fundamental to understanding the Buddhist conception of consciousness, enlightenment, rebirth - basically everything having to do with Buddhist thought.  The notion of a soul smacks of a Cartesian, Eurocentric bias and betrays belief in a lasting, personal identity.  That's something the Buddha argued [at length!] against.

@Davor "Does anything continue your existence?" Assuming there is a "me" and a "my existence", then yes and I think that (immaterial) "thing" is called "karma". I was wondering what the difference is between "karma" and "soul": part of the difference is that karma itself isn't unchanging: it's not a permanent "me" with unchanging characteristics. Wikipedia's Soul -- Buddhism has more details.

@nemo - which part of the "besides the physical body" you don't understand?

@Davor - there is no "besides the physical body" in Buddhist thought. The mind/body duality is a Western construct. Any quality, be it mental, karmic, or what Westerners would call "physical" fall under the category of dharmas or constituent elements. A moment of happiness is an elemental part of the aggregated self just as much as a carbon atom in your big toe. If you want to say that only certain dharmas can be observed, quantified, and described by our current scientific understanding, that's fine. The model you are using, however, is extremely problematic in Buddhist terms.

@nemo - I think that is the biggest word salad I've ever seen. Elemental part of aggregated self? Are you trolling? :D

Hah!  Very well.  I do encourage you to read some of the Abhidhamma.  The Dhammasangani specifically would be of some use to you in unraveling the Buddhist view of dharmas and how these elements aggregate to form what we would conventionally call a "person".  It's interesting stuff, quite frankly.


text:
Why buddhists love staying in hills?
What is reason of Buddhism mostly spread on hilltops of India then in plains of India? Moreover Dalai Lama lives on Hilltop; as he can live in plains. Is there any reason of choosing mountains for residence?

I don't think that it did "mostly spread on hilltops"... where did you get this idea?

When searched Buddhist monasteries then find maximum in Hills. In comparison in India, if 5 in plains then 20 in mountains. Tibet and Bhutan also mountains. Even in other parts prominent in hills or jungles. But Hills are more. So get an idea that there is something hilly in buddhism.

The Buddha mostly lived and taught in the Gangetic plains of India, and there's no record of him sojourning to the Himalayas like most Indian mystics.
However he is also said to have favored the Vulture peak near the city of Rajgir, so it's not like he exclusively preferred the plains either.
Most mystics like mountains for the solitude, in the Buddha's times it was possible to find it in the tropical Indian forests as well. In modern times, forest monks in Indochina keep the forest tradition alive.
The Buddha often chose meditative spots for the calm and tranquility, where meditation could proceed undisturbed, however he was also aware of spirits and other hinderances that could arise and rejected some otherwise calm places to meditate.

I think I remember, from the literature of the British Empire in India, that people spent time every year in "the hill country": because of the monsoon.
Wikipedia's description of the Vinaya says,

It is thought that originally there were no rules and the Buddha and his disciples just lived in harmony when they were together. Most of the time they would have been wandering alone, but every year, during the monsoon season when travelling became impossible, the bhikkhus would come together for a few months. As the sangha became bigger and started accepting people of lesser ability who remained unenlightened, it became necessary to begin having rules.

I don't know why Dharamsala was chosen. It's on the edge of the Himalayas: maybe "close to the Himalayas" is why it's hilly and was suitable for Tibetans-in-exile.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where did the Buddha speak of his difficulty in eating almsfood as a Bodhisatta?
In this answer, I mention that the Bodhisatta had trouble keeping down coarse alms food, to the extent that he felt like his stomach was going to leap out of his throat. @ThiagoSilva asked in a comment where the story is found, and I can't quite remember. Does anyone have a reference handy?
EDIT: Here's an example of how the passage is described, though no mention of where it comes from:

Having enjoyed the kingly bliss which was as great as that of a Universal Monarch only a matter of days ago, he made an effort to eat a morsel of food which was a mixture of coarse and fine edible things in assorted colours. As he was about to put the morsel into his mouth he felt miserable and almost vomited with the intestines turning upside down, for he had never seen such kind of food in his life and found it particularly disgusting. Then he admonished himself by saying; "You Siddhattha, in spite of the fact that you have been reigning supreme in a palace where food and drinks are available at your pleasure and where you have meals of three-year-old seasoned fragrant rice with different delicacies whenever you like, you, on seeing a recluse in robe of rags contemplated, "When shall I eat the meals obtained by going on alms round from house to house after becoming a recluse like him? When will the time come for me to live on meals thus collected? And have you not renounced the world and become a recluse with such thoughts? Now that your dream has come true, why do you like to change your mind?" Then without the slightest revulsion he took the meal that was so rough.
(source)

That quote appears to be from the Maha Buddhavamsa. Isn't the Maha Buddhavamsa therefore the answer to "where it comes from"?

@ChrisW The Maha Buddhavamsa is a later Burmese text, not to be confused (as it is here) with the Buddhavamsa of the Khuddaka Nikaya.

I found it in the introduction to the Jatakas, which seems to be the original source:

Now the Great Being, after collecting a number of scraps, sufficient, as he judged, for his sustenance, left the city by the same gate he had entered, and sitting down with his face to the east, in the shade of Pandava rock, he attempted to eat his meal. But his stomach turned, and he felt as if his inwards were on the point of coming out by his mouth. Thereupon, in the midst of his distress at that repulsive food, --for in that existence he had never before so much as seen such fare,--he began to admonish himself, saying, "Siddhattha, although you were born into a family having plenty to eat and drink, into a station in life where you lived on fragrant third season's rice1 with various sauces of the finest flavors, yet when you saw a monk clad in garments taken from the rubbish heap, you exclaimed, 'Oh, when shall I be like him, and eat food which I have begged? Will that time ever come?' And then you retired from the world. And now that you have your wish, and have renounced all, what, pray, is this you are doing?" When he had thus admonished himself, his disgust subsided, and he ate his meal.
-- Jāt-A nidānakathā (from Buddhism In Translations, Henry Clarke Warren, trans.)

The relevant Pali is "antāni parivattitvā mukhena nikkhamanākārappattāni viya ahesuṃ" - It was like the intestines, having churned, attained the state of leaving through the mouth."
The Buddhavamsa doesn't mention this reflection, saying of his first alms round simply:

nisīditvā āhāraṃ paccavekkhitvā nibbikāro paribhuñji
Having sat down, having reflected on the food, unperturbed, he ate.
-- Bv-A, nidānakathā

The quote appears in this text. However it appears to be a Victorian-era translation of the Jâtaka without much details about the version of the original from which it was translated.

BUDDHISM
IN TRANSLATIONS
Passages Selected from the Buddhist Sacred Books
and Translated from the Original Pâli into English by
Henry Clarke Warren
Published by Harvard University Press {1896}

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits007.htm

§ 7. THE GREAT STRUGGLE. Translated from the Introduction to the
  Jâtaka (i.6529).
NOW the Future Buddha, having thus retired from the world,--in that
  place there was a mango-grove named Anupiya, and here he first spent a
  week in the joy of having retired from the world,--in one day went on
  foot to Râjagaha, a distance of thirty leagues, and entering the city,
  he begged for food from house to house without passing any by. By the
  beauty of the Future Buddha, the whole city was thrown into a
  commotion, like that into which Râjagaha was thrown by the entrance of
  Dhanapâlaka, or like that into which the
p. 68 [J.i.664 heavenly city was thrown by the entrance of the chief
  of the Titans.
Then ran the king's men to the palace, and made announcement,--
"Sire, there is a being of such and such appearance going about the
  city begging for food. Whether he be a god, or a man, or a serpent, or
  a bird, we do not know."
Then the king, standing on the roof of his palace, and thence
  beholding the Great Being, became amazed and astonished, and commanded
  his men,--
"Look ye now! Go and investigate this! If this person be not a man,
  he will vanish from sight as soon as he leaves the city; if, namely,
  he be a god, he will depart by way of the air; if a serpent, he will
  sink into the ground. But if he be a human being, he will eat the food
  he has obtained in alms."
Now the Great Being, after collecting a number of scraps,
  sufficient, as he judged, for his sustenance, left the city by the
  same gate he had entered, and sitting down with his face to the east,
  in the shade of Pandava rock, he attempted to eat his meal. But his
  stomach turned, and he felt as if his inwards were on the point of
  coming out by his mouth. Thereupon, in the midst of his distress at
  that repulsive food, --for in that existence he had never before so
  much as seen such fare,--he began to admonish himself, saying,
  "Siddhattha, although you were born into a family having plenty to eat
  and drink, into a station in life where you lived on fragrant third
  season's rice1 with various sauces of the finest flavors, yet when you
  saw a monk clad in garments taken from the rubbish heap, you
  exclaimed, 'Oh, when shall I be like him, and eat food which I have
  begged? Will that time ever come?' And then you retired from the
  world. And
p. 69 [J.i.6622 now that you have your wish, and have renounced all,
  what, pray, is this you are doing?" When he had thus admonished
  himself, his disgust subsided, and he ate his meal.

@yuttadhammo Thanks, I noticed. I wasn't very sure of the translation - those pioneering Victorian gentlemen were not always careful about not making things up in translation. Anything from that era I try to verify from more than one source. Perhaps you could confirm it with the original Pali?

Yeah, that's how I found it. The passage is "antāni parivattitvā mukhena nikkhamanākārappattāni viya ahesuṃ" - It was like the intestines, having churned, attained the state of leaving through the mouth."

@yuttadhammo thanks. Even post enlightenment there's residual conditioning. I remember a story about a Brahman Arhat monk who went around treating other monks shabbily, like one would (could) an inferior. The monks complained to the Buddha who reassured them he meant no ill will; it was merely his conditioning from numerous past lives as a high caste Brahman that was showing. Somewhere else it is commented that enlightenment is like emptying a wine bottle, the smell of wine will still be there for some time. Liking rich food while still unenlightened is understandable.

Yeah, they call it "vāsanā" in the texts - only the Buddha is free from it. Buddhas don't have residual conditioning.

@yuttadhammo indeed, but does the Buddha ever advise the Arhats on getting rid of the vāsanās? Quite often it appears Arhats are misunderstood because of it, and the Buddha is called in to resolve it - quite often by vouchsafing for the clear mind and blameless intent of the Arhat. It might be a useful skill for Arhats to get rid of this too.

It is from the The Great Chronicles of the Buddhas by venerable Mingun Sayadaw.
Chapter 4, page 280, paragraph 3. It is preceded by the following.
The Bodhishtta's Visit to Rajagaha City
After becoming a recluse, the Bodhisatta, after spending seven full days in ascetic bliss in the nearby mango grove called Anupiya, travelled a journey of thirty yojanas on foot in one single day and entered the city of Rajagaha. (This is the statement made in the Buddhavamsa Commentary and the Jataka Commentary.)
(According to the Sutta Nipata Commentary, however,) the Bodhisatta, after becoming a recluse, observed the Ajivattamaka sila, the Precepts with pure livelihood as the eighth, and journeyed to Rajagaha, thirty yojanas away from the banks of Anoma in seven days.

This reflection is actually not in the Bv-A, just the Jataka (see my answer).

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


text:
Why is meditation pleasurable?
It strikes me that it is very fortunate that meditation can be pleasurable. If there was no fairly immediate rewards then surely hardly anyone would make any kind of progress towards enlightenment. It almost like it is designed to have little pleasant staging posts where the practitioner can rest before continuing onward with the journey.
But why is meditation pleasurable? Could it be insightful but barren or is there something inherent in the practice that is pleasant and the pleasant quality of meditation is a necessary quality? What do the texts say about the pleasant qualities of meditation? Is there any accounts about why it is pleasant perhaps mythic accounts or explanations?

path of least resistance :)

my experience was one of relief I guess. I ran high levels of anxiety that dissipated quickly. But strangely I had the strongest and longest experience of bliss early on but that is probably just me

A counter question: why is it pleasurable to stretch and bend your bones in the morning after sleep? But more seriously: isn't it simply part of your very personal body/mind-experiences to feel pleasured? So some people might feel like you (because they and you are similar by genom...or so...) and others might feel different. What about the size of that two groups? For me, meditation has various levels and in the basic ones I just connect to a happy/content state like I know from childhood, and in the more advanced ones I feel happy because I seem to be a researcher/pioneer by my heart...

What meditation are you practicing? Sounds like fun :)

When I took the course Buddhism and Modern Psychology, the lecture delved into the neurobiology behind meditation. Material was presented that breaks up the conscious mind into 8 centers competing to be at the forefront of awareness. When meditating, the Default Mode Network(DMN) in the mind shows less activity in fMRI scans in studies led by Judson Brewer who himself used meditation as a coping mechanism during medical school.
The DMN is the center of the mind thought to be responsible for daydreaming. The exact mechanism between meditation and pleasure in the mind is not known, but I speculate that a sort of rhythm develops between these competing centers and other parts of the brain that leads to decreased levels of cortisol and increase in pleasure neurotransmitters such as dopamine.
A point to note: Suzuki Roshi mentions in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, that the purpose of meditation is not too feel good or become a better person rather the purpose of meditation is to meditate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network
https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/05/the-healing-art-of-meditation/

When the mind becomes still and rests in the present it gradually becomes more and more free of hindrances and conditioned phenomena. Naturally it moves closer to Nibbana and begins to experience the bliss of freedom from samsaric winds.
I have tried to make a drawing of it. You might have to zoom in to see it.
What it shows is Nibbana in the bottom. Nibbana is perfect peace, bliss and happiness. As we move further away from Nibbana, i.e. towards the top we move through the different realms of existence. Next stop from Nibbana we have Arupa-Loka (the formless realms) which holds the "next-best" peace, bliss and happiness. As we move towards Rupa-Loka (fine-material world), Kama-loka (sensuous plane) and Apaya (deprivation realms) the mind will experience less and less peace, bliss and happiness.
The arrow on the right side shows the degree of peace, bliss and happiness that the mind experiences when moving through the different planes of existence.
When moving away from complexity and towards greater and greater simplicity the mind becomes more and more quiet and less disturbance will be experienced. That naturally results in a more peaceful and blissful mind.
Another way to explain it is that the mind becomes less and less scattered when moving towards unity, i.e. Liberation.
Hope this helps. If you have any questions to the drawing let me know.

If you're practising samatha meditation, you can get pleasurable feelings of piti (ecstasy) and sukha (joy) on entering the first jhana state.
In the article entitled "Entering the Jhanas", Leigh Brasington described the first jhana:

In this altered state of consciousness, you will be overcome with
  rapture, euphoria, ecstasy, delight. These are all English words that
  are used to translate the Pali word piti. Perhaps the best English
  word for piti is “glee.” Piti is a primarily physical sensation that
  sweeps you powerfully into an altered state. But piti is not solely
  physical; as the suttas say, “On account of the presence of piti,
  there is mental exhilaration.” In addition to the physical energy and
  mental exhilaration, the piti will be accompanied by an emotional
  sensation of joy and happiness. The Pali word for this joy/happiness
  is sukha, the opposite of dukkha (pain, suffering). And if you can
  remain undistractedly focused on this experience of piti and sukha,
  that is the first jhana.

Please read the article for further information on the jhanas, including quotes from the Pali Canon.


text:
Is it right to teach other people?
Everyone of us is unique, with different percepts, respective back ground & nature. although Way of living can be equally beneficial to everyone, inhaling & exhaling peace of mind, together. So many religions, text, even our history tell us about us. All these teach us while a few people get elevated level and again start teaching us.
I've learned a lot from them but the best i learn and adapt that comes within and stay within me IS ACTUALLY RESULT OF MY ABILITY TO BEND MY THINKING. My question is just this simple - is it right to share my thinking with others or not? Aren't we are becoming more dependent on others?

Hi. Do you mean In general? Or From the buddhist perspective?

From the buddist perspective, actually.

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

How is it right to teach other?

If one's teachings teaches people how to become free from suffering and that teaching deals with ultimate reality then that would be considered wholesome way of acting.
If one teaches freedom from suffering but one's teachings are dealing with concepts such as a Creator God it is not wholesome since it will not lead people to Liberation. It will instead bring more delusion into other beings minds and steer them further away from the path to end suffering. Since delusion is what is keeping beings in Samsara it would be considered unwholesome to input more delusion in them.

Is it right to share my thinking with others or not?

What kind thinking are we talking about?
If one is sharing unwholesome ways of thinking with others that might lead to wrong speech, wrong action.
Another aspect to mention is also whether or not the other being in some way has agreed to be told about one's thoughts. Sometimes a being might have problems in his or her own life and might not have energy to listen to other beings problems. If one then just unloads on that being without that being wanting to listen that might not be a good thing.
In the same way if one has criminal intentions and wants to commit a crime then if one tells another innocent being about ones plans one will actually involve that being in the act. Now that being has some unwanted knowledge which is placing that being in an unfortunate sitation. Should the being go to the police with the information or what to do? These are just examples of what might happen if we share wrong and unwholesome ways of thinking with other beings.
One could also choose to share wholesome thoughts, i.e. thoughts of renunciation, peace, friendliness, loving-kindness and the like. This would be beneficial not only for oneself but also for other beings. One might share an advice with another being who is in need for advice. Wholesome actions will produce wholesome results.

Aren't we are becoming more dependent on others?

This question is difficult to answer since it can be answered in many different ways. It's actually subjective. Some people will say no while others will say yes. I do not have an answer for this question.
What i would like to point out is the "attachment-factor" in the question. The Buddha clearly stated that we should be our own refuge and not rely on other people for salvation. With that in mind one should strive to set oneself free. One should practice diligently and not be negligent. A human life is very short and we must practice while the body and mind is still intact. Old age, sickness and death will come to all of us.
See Dhammapada Verse 166 - The Story of Venerable Attadattha.
Being dependent on others will not set one free. The Buddha's only show the way. We ourselves must practice it.
May you be well and happy and free from suffering.

The way it was explained to me is that, similar to what Sri Lanka said, there is a risk of creating more delusion and dukkha if one is teaching while one has not fully attained enlightenment.. ie.  the way to liberation is not transmitted fully. Since I am just a pilgrim on the path of a thousand steps, I can only offer my own experience in support of other's paths.
Some people teach for the joy of it, some people for the ego gratification it supplies. I've always thought of buddhism as being about the 'doing' and not so much the 'talking'. So for me, I'd rather practice with others than try to 'teach' them about it...

Nah, because knowledge is not enough anyway. Even if someone is totally open to learning from you they must be even more eager to put things into practice in order to reach a particular field's skillful attainments.
Buddhism teaches the Middle ground: do enough learning but also do enough practice to achieve one's goal. Don't have too much pride in either knowledge nor practice because knowledge without practice is useless and practice without knowledge is blind.
That being said, if there is something you can share with someone that you think for sure would help them, then it is the poison of greed to hold it back!
Anyway, it is most likely that you are wrong because people can find all sorts of ways to ignroe excellent wisdom and intelligence, nothing is perfectly persuasive..


text:
What did the Buddha say about music?
Do music help? Why sometimes it feels equal to meditation in terms of achieving bliss (may be for short span of period) Or music is just an another time wasting thing? Text with links and pictorials in your answer are the most welcome. All are welcome. Thanks

Meditation isn't meant to only achieve bliss, it's real purpose is insight. And meditative bliss so aroused far surpasses musical bliss. In fact, after steam entry one notices a total drop in interest in music and entertainment.

See also this thread: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8228/is-it-considered-against-standard-buddhist-doctrine-to-meditate-with-music

Music is not good as a meditation object as it arouses craving.
If you analyse the 40 meditation objects of Samatha, you can identify 3 kinds of objects:
neutral objects, virtuous or holy objects and unattractive or repulsive objects. All carefully chosen to subdue certain defilements or achieve Jhanas.

What did the Buddha say about music?

For monks:
There are, bhikkhus, these five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with a sustained melodic intonation.
Which five?

Oneself gets attached to that intonation
Others get attached to that intonation
Householders get angry:
'Those ascetics who are followers of the Sakyans' son sing in the
same way that we do!'
There is a break in concentration for those striving [to produce] musicality
And the upcoming generations imitate what they see.

For Lay people:
7th of the 8 precepts
Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
- I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.
The 8 precepts are usually practiced on Poya days and when you stay in a meditation center

Reading your link to the Precepts was helpful. I have often wondered why spiritual and religious groups seem to be against some things, but I see that in many cases they were taken to extremes, and so the entire lot of it was closed. I think that it can be possible to dance, sing and listen to music in an uplifting way, but I find my interest fading. I was never big on "entertainments" though.

Music is not prohibited for laymen

I think music and entertainment etc. are just 'forbidden' because they promote sensual desire, and of course the time one is listening to music can be better spend for meditation. Most of the downsides mentiondd by Sankha aren't even important nowadays. It is the same with the points regarding what falls under 'sexual misconduct'. If a woman lives by her parents and you would want to have sex/relationship with her, then this would probably fall under misconduct. Sexual misconduct was heavily tied to the society back then, but of course it largely comprises the reduction of dukkha.

There is no comparison between music and sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct leads to birth in lower realms. That's why it's one of the five precepts. Music is simply a distraction to monks and those who meditate. That's why it's only mentioned in the eight precepts

I never said anything else, but if you read closely again, sexual misconduct is not just about unconsenting sex. Buddha made it clear that one shouldn't engage in a woman if she is protected by her parents etc. How do you interpret that? Is it up-to-date?

I believe i answered this question elsewhere. Lets not get into it here again :)

while most of people see that music is a fruit for the soul but actually it is another source of craving and attachment to ordain things , it should be emphasized that Buddhism as a way of truth it needs to break every attachment to the any earthly thing. For that reason meditation should be only practiced with things that allows you to turn inward and not still be attached to an outsider connection, I don’t know what the Buddha himself said about this subject but I think that what he would say ----------

Good answer. Welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Resource tab and a Guide for new users that you might find useful. Have a pleasant stay here.

What did the Buddha say about music?

I am not sure what the exact Sutta is but perhaps which is one which is not yet translated into English. In this Panchasika or Pansilu is in love and composes a love song towards another Deva he has fallen in love with. Thinking who is the most intelligent person who can give an opinion on this is the Buddha he visits the Buddha vet his composition.

The scriptures record two instances of Panchasika or Pansilu, the musician of Tavatimsa heaven, visiting the Buddha: on one such occasion, standing outside the dwelling of the Buddha, and within a short distance to be audible to the enlightened one, Panchasika while playing his instrument named as Beluvapanda, sang his own composition which described the attractiveness of his sweetheart. A line from a verse in the lyrics he recited goes as follows...
“When shall I be fortunate to experience the warmth of your smooth and sensual bosom…”
After singing his favourite, Panchasika went before the Buddha who apparently was neither distressed/ disturbed nor enchanted by Panchasika’s obscene lyric; strangely, the Buddha commented about the high quality of his singing [it is not known, if he sang it in high pitched operatic or otherwise]. He specifically admired the synchronization between melody, vocal singing and the instrumental music! The Buddha said,
“the notes of your playing are in harmony with the notes of the song; the notes of the song are in harmony with the notes of your veena; instrumental tones do not exceed your vocal tones, and vocal tones do not surpass your veena tones; Panchasika, when did you compose this song?”
Surely the styles, melodies and lyrics of deities who are of extremely cheerful happy-go-lucky beings cannot be calming, soothing or spiritual but much more erotic even than our modern and emerging compositions of sounds, ideas, rhythms and themes; yet the Buddha, perhaps one of the earliest music critics of the world had a great regard for the worldly aspects of life. The above story gives an indication of the Buddha’s insights on Harmony, as well as his perception and patience. [Panchasika’s musical recital is described in detail in by Gurulugomi in his literary work, Amavatura.]

Source: The veena in Buddhist stories and Is disharmony allowed in Buddhism?
Summary of the key points are:

the notes of your playing are in harmony with the notes of the song
the notes of the song are in harmony with the notes of the veena
instrumental tones do not exceed your vocal tones vocal tones do not
surpass your veena tones

Perhaps reference can be found as part of the answer to the following question: What are the occasions did Panchasika or Pansilu meet the Buddha

Why sometimes it feels equal to meditation ...

I don't personally advocate music as a meditation pratice but as an alternative meditation pratice Richard Shankman teachers mindfulness of sound. But perhaps you can use a Gong instead of music as music may lead to attachment.

Alternative Meditation Practices
The breath is commonly taught as a universal meditation subject, suitable for everyone. But for some people the breath is not a good object to work with. I knew a man who had a choking incident as a child, and paying attention to his breathing brought up feelings of anxiety. Another person with asthma found that she became tense whenever she focused on the breath. If you are one for whom the breath does not work well, there is nothing wrong; this will not hinder your ability to meditate. It’s just a matter of finding the right practice in these early stages to substitute for breath meditation.
Here are some techniques you can try if you think mindfulness of breathing is not a good practice for you. These common alternatives are not the only methods that can substitute for mindful breathing, but the full range of possibilities is beyond our scope here.
Mindfulness of Sound
In the instructions for mindfulness of breathing we let all other experiences stay in the background of our awareness, not forcing or pushing them away but bringing a gentle sense of allowing them to be in the background while giving some preference or predominance to awareness of our breathing. In the same way, with this practice we allow other experiences to stay in the background and we give preference or predominance to the experience of sound. You may feel a natural draw or pull to awareness of hearing, and this practice can be very calming and settling. Those for whom mindfulness of sound works well commonly report it as an easily accessible and even compelling meditation object. You may be drawn to awareness of the sounds themselves or you may be more naturally aware of the act or the process of listening or hearing.
Mindfulness of sound entails working with either inner or outer sound. Even though it may be very quiet where you are meditating, you may feel drawn to rest your awareness in listening to however many or few sounds may be present at any time. Other people hear an inner sound, a clear perception of ringing or some other sound, experienced not through the ears but in the mind. You can see if you have such an experience and if you are drawn to rest in awareness of inner or outer sound.
If you are working with mental noting, you can mentally repeat hearing or sound if that helps keep you stay connected and centered with the auditory experience. If you practice mindfulness of sound, just substitute hearing every time I use the terms breath or breathing.

Source: Beginning Meditation Instructions: Excerpted from “The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation”

I think it's in the Sakka Panna Sutta in the DN.

This is a rather long Sutta. I failed to find it within DN 21.

Buddha said follow at least 5 precepts.  I have heard Visaka who attained Sothapanna at age of 7, dancing, singing on the street one day when one of the temples festival.  she dresses well enjoyed her family life, had 30+ kids as a sottapanna.  My understanding is siging, dancing, listening music is enjoyable as much as if you are not too attached.(Dependent Origination)

With Music its difficult to see the things as they are . Music may seems to help but it actually make the condition worse.

Because once you are attached to the music you wont be able to practice without it.
You will start enjoying the music that will deviate you from the path.
The happiness from music is temporary as it depends upon the music.
It may generate craving for Sensual pleasure(EAR).

So, start working on your breath :)

I studied on and off with a Tibetan lineage years ago. Like many are saying, attachment to anything generates karma. There are 3 kinds of karma: Good, Bad and Neutral.

Good sounds right but: it generates craving down the road.
Bad is: well bad.
Neutral: is the one we want, for it does not generate karmic seeds which is what perpetuates our suffering in this existence and the next.

Therefore, ANYTHING we think or do generates karma or not... depending upon how we perceive it.  Ultimately, we need to see everything as "empty" including our own persona.  (The concept of "emptiness" needs to be studied as it goes very deep and there isn't enough space here.) However, it is by cultivating emptiness that we create neutral karma.  But at the same time, we are still human and can "enjoy" anything as long as we understand it is inherently empty.  (Obviously, this doesn't mean enjoying sinister things.)
That said: music can be enjoyed but one shouldn't be attached to it.
Now... there is also "music" and there is also what monks use, and that is more of a "focused and mindful" approach to sound when used for chanting.
This is a different way of using our listening ability.  Remember, "hearing" is not the same as "listening."  Active listening is more like using your ear as a telephoto lens for detail.  (A skill we seem to be losing thanks to TV, films and internet which are visual mediums.)
If you develop your listening deep enough, what you'll hear is that the monks are playing with tones in a "pure" fashion.  To anyone with musical training, they immediately recognize that the monks are involving themselves with what is called "The Overtone Series."  It seems technical but it's not really.  It's something that was known about by ancient Greece particularly the philosopher Pythagoras.
Using the overtone series, it is the closest we get to using sound as vibration for vibrations sake.  With this in mind, it is believed that certain vibrations create specific conditions in the mind and our energy body.
(And if thought about further, even in the west, in Genesis we see, "God SAID..."  The pure power of the spoken word (sound) was there to create light.  And hence... "In the beginning was the word."
Whether one subscribes to the literal notion of Genesis is not my point.  But rather, the power of sound is not relegated to Buddhism but found across the globe.)
All that said: YES... you can listen to music.  But be MINDFUL what it is you are taking in.  If you want to listen to pop.  Go ahead but know that in the big picture, the music isn't really going to alter your consciousness in a profound way.  See it as "empty."  In the end, you are better off, listening to music or chanting that somehow alters or lifts you.  But again.  All is EMPTY.

As a lay person I would venture to say just lighten up on the whole music thing. Enjoy it, and practice both if you want. There is really no conflict. The Buddha talked about not going to extremes, and although desire and other emotions can be aroused though music, they can also be aroused by many other things too. Why go through life or spiritual practice with extreme limitations imposed by some idea that somehow these denials will "transform" or "liberate" me? In my understanding the Buddha never denied being human in a human body, having a human experience. I think Shariputra or whomever was suppossed to have wept when Buddha died. We're not robots, I took my lay vows and I try to keep them, but I took them to get free, not to lock myself down into another set of dogmas and unrealistic denials of pleasure and joy. That said, I fully realize I wish I could have had "been" a JUKEBOX HERO!

there are wholesome music and unwholesome music. wholesome music can be a mean to assist in realizing liberation.

It's not simple to say this is 'wholesome'. For lay people there might be a continuum for what is wholesome and what is less wholesome. If positive emotions are aroused it is better than if defilments are. But on an ultimate level, music is unwholesome (for realisation) because it's sensual desire, which blocks samadhi

Craving can be found everywhere even in the desire to enter Nirvana ,although there is a clear distiction  to be made between desire and craving but that is whole different topic .  Buddha teaches us that there is a way to take things lightly even Nirvana itself , that way is called the middle way , music is not an object or a given form , is a faculty that can have creative or reactive ends .
Therefore is up to the mental state of the one that experiences it - creator or receiver - for music to be used as a skilful tool  of meditation or interaction
If that is  mental state of attachment or craving yes music will amplify that , if that is a mental state that encourages growth music will be simply perecieved as a creative object   of art and what this  art does is to communicate this that cannot be comunicated by words , it helps communicate  the abstract  which is impossible to communicate with reason , as what the Buddha teaches us goes beyond reason and abstract altogether .
meditation and the whole spiritual path is an inner journey ,
As human beings we do have the need to communicate and share our experience of that journey with  each other  , reason is not enough to communicate that  , that is where arts , myths and archetypes come in.
To deny that music has skillful means we deny the whole of arts and the place they take  in the traditIon of the different Buddhist schools .
To deny the arts from the Dharma all is left is reason and ethics which is a pretty narrow and shallow view of the teachings, takes the warmth and life out of them .

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


text:
Looking for an online resource of the commentary(SNA.ii.476; SA.i.155) which says that the Brahma Sahampati was an Anagami from the Suddhavasa realms
This page mentions the following:

The Commentaries say (SNA.ii.476; SA.i.155) that he was an Anagami
  Brahma born in the Suddhavasa, there to pass a whole kappa...

I'm looking for an online resource for SNA.ii.476; SA.i.155.
Thanks!

In what language?

ven. @yuttadhammo, Pali is fine, Bhante! It would be fun to decipher. :)

The Sutta Nipata source is Sn-A 3.10:
Roman Pali:
http://tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0505a.att2.xml
Sinhalese Pali:
http://tipitaka.org/sinh/cscd/s0505a.att2.xml
The relevant passage is:
Atha kho brahmā sahampatīti ko ayaṃ brahmā, kasmā ca bhagavantaṃ upasaṅkamitvā etadavocāti? Ayaṃ kassapassa bhagavato sāsane sahako nāma bhikkhu anāgāmī hutvā suddhāvāsesu uppanno, tattha naṃ ‘‘**sahampati brahmā’’ti sañjānanti.
අථ ඛො බ්‍රහ්‌මා සහම්‌පතීති කො අයං බ්‍රහ්‌මා, කස්‌මා ච භගවන්‌තං උපසඞ්‌කමිත්‌වා එතදවොචාති? අයං කස්‌සපස්‌ස භගවතො සාසනෙ සහකො නාම භික්‌ඛු අනාගාමී හුත්‌වා සුද්‌ධාවාසෙසු උප්‌පන්‌නො, තත්‌ථ නං ‘‘සහම්‌පති බ්‍රහ්‌මා’’ති සඤ්‌ජානන්‌ති.
Roughly:
"And then the Brahma Sahampati" - Who was this brahma? And from what [cause] did he, having approached, say this? This one, a bhikkhu named Sahaka in the sasana of the Kassapa the Blessed One, having become an anagami, arose in the Pure Abodes; there, they knew him as "Sahampati Brahma".

Sādhu Bhante! I've also heard that he had already attained Arahantship by the time he invited the Buddha to preach the Dhamma.

I'm guessing it says "Sahampathi Brahma was ordained by the name of 'Sahako' and got the upasampada in the Sasana of Kassapa Buddha. He became an Anagami and was born in Suddhavasa. He was called by the name 'Sahampathi' by his fellow Brahmas."?  I probably butchered it! :D

@SankhaKulathantille well done :) I added a translation.


text:
Do doctors waste their chance?
Instead of dwelling on the true nature of the body right in front of their eyes, Doctors have become PROBLEM SOLVERS. Doctors see birth, aging, sickness and death on a daily basis but have somehow become deaf,dumb and blind to all that they see and hear inside a ward. It is all just an addition subtraction formula where drugs/treatment are prescribed for easing a patient's suffering, while maybe giving a patient reassurance if needed.
How can a medical student or a doctor get across this barrier, and not be deconditioned to being blind to the truth, and how can he/she be strong and balanced enough mentally to cope up with the evergrowing needs/obligations that a doctor is cursed with?

Hi Dilshan. I have updated my answer and tried to answer your questions more specific. Hope that helps. If you have further questions please let me know.

I thought you might find this interesting: http://narrative.ly/no-theme-required-1/how-a-cheerful-monk-became-a-doctor-of-death/

Do doctors waster their chance as you put it? They are human beings and so we could surmise most do and some don't. Do they have a privileged position to exercise their humanity?

Doctors see birth, aging, sickness and death on a daily basis but have somehow become deaf,dumb and blind to all that they see and hear inside a ward.

I totally agree with you! I recently watched Alive Inside, a brilliant documentary about the plight of the elderly in America who are struggling with dementia and other related diseases. The documentary clearly illustrates that the root cause of the problem is not that the care givers and doctors are inhuman but that the system in which they find themselves, conditions them to think of the elderly under their care as 'patients' not human beings. Until they are 'cured' we must hide them away in institutions.
Science is great at solving problems but, in the medical profession, it has been taken too far and patients are seen as puzzles to solve, dials to turn and control rather than as HUMAN BEINGS. So what's missing is COMPASSION.
The modern Hypocratic Oath states:

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. Wikipedia

How much of this warmth, sympathy and understanding is taught in medical school? Very little. It's all science - diagnosis and treatment of symptoms. Symptoms that present themselves in a biological machine not in a human being. Without the balance of a basic compassionate view, failure to cure every patient, will eventually take its emotional toll on the doctor. From a basic view of compassion there is no failure only a desire to help, to support and care for.
In ayurvedic medicine, doctors ask the following four questions upon seeing their patients: 1) Is there a disease? If so, what is it? 2) What is the cause of the disease? 3) Is there a cure for the disease? 4) If there is a cure, what is the treatment?
Sounds like the Four Noble Truths right? Buddha must have been exposed to Ayurveda in India and re-framed these questions to diagnose the human condition. Buddha could have kept quiet about his great liberation under the Bodhi tree and just live out the rest of his life in bliss and happiness ... but he chose to teach and share with others out of COMPASSION.
So I think my answer is clear ;)

How can a medical student or a doctor get across this barrier, and not be deconditioned to being blind to the truth, and how can he/she be strong and balanced enough mentally to cope up with the evergrowing needs/obligations that a doctor is cursed with?

COMPASSION :)

Best answer my friend! Keep it coming!

Great question Dilshan. Best of luck with your medical studies!

General answer containing the perspective of Medical Science and Buddhism.

I think the difference lies in the approach that medical science and Buddhism uses.
Buddhism deals with the true nature of reality, i.e. Ultimate Reality based on the gaining of experiental knowledge through insight meditation.
Medical science deals only with Conventional Reality, i.e. concepts, conventions and entities such as "a body, a man, a woman" etc.
When one is not dealing with the true nature of reality one cannot treat anything else than symptoms.
Medical science treats the symptoms of Dukkha.
Buddhism treats the root cause of Dukkha by going to the root of the problem, i.e. Avijja. The Buddha's teaching is the only one that will ensure a permanent cure for suffering, i.e. Nibbana.

How can a medical student or a doctor get across this barrier, and not be deconditioned to being blind to the truth?

The way to not being blind about the truth, i.e. the true nature of reality is to practice insight meditation and thereby gain insights into the 3 signs of existence; anicca, dukkha, anatta. By doing that the meditator is transforming conventional knowledge (book-knowledge) into experiental knowledge (wisdom). This wisdom will shed away Avijja revealing the truth.
To add to that it's very important to know what kind of reality one is dealing with. As mentioned earlier in the answer, in buddhism we have 2 kinds of reality. The Conventional one and the Ultimate one. Dealing with conventional reality will not let one see the true nature of phenomena. To experience that one must deal with Ultimate reality, i.e. Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, Nibbana.

How can he/she be strong and balanced enough mentally to cope up with the evergrowing needs/obligations that a doctor is cursed with?

By following the Noble Eightfold Path the meditator will build up mental strength so that there will be less and less wavering in the mind. If one is practicing diligently and consistently the mind will become steady, strong and non-scattered. Having a strong mind enables one to stay mindful and centered even in the middle of a storm.
How can the mind become still and steady?
The morality section of the Noble Eightfold path is the foundation. With the practice of good conduct there will be less guilt and remorse in the mind, making it easier to practice the Concentration group of the path, i.e. Right effort, Right concentration and Right mindfulness.
To build a house we need a strong foundation. Moral restraint and good conduct is the foundation upon we develop concentration which we then use to penetrate reality and gain Wisdom about the true nature of phenomena. That will in the end lead to Nibbana.

Do doctors waste their chance?

This question is not for me to answer. That is up to the individual being to answer that one.

Simple - we need to develop "Right view". A Doctor's profession is not a curse; it is viewing it as such that makes it so.

Pranic energy or Qi energy is affected by the emotions we manifest. If we are angry, despondent or fearful we deplete this energy faster than if we were kind and compassionate. This is why happy and cheerful moods give lots of energy and depressed moods take away energy.
When our prana energy is low we can become tired, disaffected, depressed and despondent. Pure compassion and kindness can be life sustaining, even increasing prana energy. A doctor who practices compassion properly can actually continually increase his energy level through the practice of the profession.
There is a psychological concept of compassion fatigue, but this isn't pure compassion, it is compassion tinged with fear. The fear depletes energy reserves and soon compassion becomes impossible. This is why there are records of field surgeons in WW2 committing suicide after saving hundreds of lives. How could they not despair at what they considered the meaninglessness of war? Yet, this is a wrong view.
To overcome this wrong view requires an awakening to the truth of life.
When we think of death as bad, and life as good, we exist in a duality. We will then see only suffering in death and illness and be affected by our patients and friends who are ill and dying.
When we get rid of thinking in dualities where death is undesirable and life is desirable, then we won't be affected.
Where there is life, there is death already there. How can one exist without the other? We must learn to see life and death as one movement.
Sometimes life is apparent and visible, and sometimes death is apparent and visible, but it is the fault of our vision to not see both exist at the same time. Both are already there.
In a living body if we examine closely, we can see a dying body that is kept alive by new cells being born all the time. This much modern science already says. We lose millions of cells every day, and replace them with as many new cells. Thus life and death are ever occurring.
In a dead body that is buried in the ground we can see new fertilizer that will grow life soon. In a new born baby we see a being that will eventually die one day.
The Buddha saw all life and death in all the realms of existence, but he was unaffected, he wasn't depressed because he saw them with pure compassion, without a tinge of fear or insecurity. He had the right view of life and death.
When he saw pleasure he saw the suffering innate in pleasure; when he saw death and destruction, he saw the suffering innate in that too. Thus seeing that all existence is suffering, yet that all existence is empty of innate substance, he was liberated.

Being a doctor is just another service that you can do for others in order to perform Right Livelihood.
In Buddhism, you can do whatever you want as your Right Livelihood, so long as it is moral and doesn't violate the other precepts.
Being a doctor is very good for spiritual devleopment since you are seeing The Three Characteristics ever single day. There are also many diagnostic powers that come from success in meditation that one can use in being a doctor.
In many, many ways being a doctor is very complementary to spiritual practice.
What else would the great sages of the past that became Enlightened and understood the laws of the unvierse do but transform and heal others?
There are many concentration meditation practices that are helpful to the doctor's practice and profession, skeleton meditation being the most prized (many monks attained super powers through this practice). For further reading, I recommend meditationexpert.com articles on this.
Anyway, every single profession has its challenges in integrating with your spiritual practice. Having good organization ability (of energy, time, and activities) is crucial.
Daniel Ingram, is a doctor and holds Buddhist accomplishments. In his book, "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" he explains how he used original Buddhist teachings (Theravadin) to help him get through the hurdles of medical school... as well as controversial claims of Enlightenment and having achieved bhumihood/bodhisattvahood...

Do doctors waste their chance?

When my friend was dying, and told me what I should say to people at a funeral speech, she said that the first thing was to "don't forget" that she had "loved her doctors" who had "saved her life".
I think she was grateful.
The way I understand it, a mundane explanation of what she said was that, it the fact that they gave her medical care that made her life livable.
Different doctors cared for (helped) her in different ways:

Her surgeon for example was confident, self-confident: and that gave her some confidence.
Another surgeon (who was inserting a stent under local anaesthetic) talked with her (e.g. about her and about what he was doing), became a friend, while he was working.
Her family doctor (general practitioner) gave her prescriptions but also good health-related advice, and said some psychological things like "your family love you" when that might have been helpful.

(None of the above is Buddhist advice.)

Instead of dwelling on the true nature of the body right in front of their eyes, Doctors have become PROBLEM SOLVERS.

Maybe you could do both: i.e. understand the body (and other aspects of a human being's nature) AND solve problems.
I think that's more or less what the Right Livelihood of being a doctor may consist of.

Doctors see birth, aging, sickness and death on a daily basis but have somehow become deaf, dumb and blind to all that they see and hear inside a ward.

"Deaf, dumb and blind" sounds quite dysfunctional. I don't understand it (what you're saying) so I can't try to answer this sentence.

It is all just an addition subtraction formula where drugs/treatment are prescribed for easing a patient's suffering, while maybe giving a patient reassurance if needed.

Even ignoring that there are people in the equation, I suspect that a medical doctor's job may be much more complicated than "an addition subtraction formula":

Diagnosis:

Beware that symptoms presented may have diverse etiologies
Examine for related symptoms to help make a differential diagnosis

Prescription

The right amount
Try something else if the first prescription doesn't work
Do it safely ("the dose makes the poison", avoid iatrogenic and nosocomial problems)
Do it bravely (medicine may be poison but disease may be worse than the treatment)

Prevention

Don't just fix a bullet wound, try to offer a treatment plan for the lifestyle which caused it

How can a medical student or a doctor get across this barrier, and not be deconditioned to being blind to the truth, and how can he/she be strong and balanced enough mentally to cope up with the evergrowing needs/obligations that a doctor is cursed with?

It might help (you and others) to remember that you're not alone.
Maybe you'll hand over to a specialist: a surgeon, an otolaryngologist, a psychiatrist, an oncologist, or any number of other specialties.
They in turn may hand their/your patient back to the GP / family doctor, for ongoing care.
In the hospital, maybe part of your job is to support the nurses: if they spend more time with the patient than you do, then maybe they know the patient better; nevertheless they (the nurses and the patient) need your technical support (e.g. for monitoring the effect of prescriptions) and that's what you can do for them.
As for spiritual advice and comfort, you might be able to offer that as a friend, a fellow human being, a fellow Buddhist. Another option is to hope to delegate that too to another specialist: one of the patient's friend, family, or their teacher, or perhaps a chaplain, monk, or nun who will visit people in the hospital.
It might also be helpful to review what Right Speech is: timely, kind, and so on. As a doctor you may know things (about cause and prognosis) which a patient doesn't. Sharing that knowledge may help the patient to live with/within reality instead of fear (of the unknown) and ignorance.

If you're looking for Buddhist advice about dying, there's a lot of that advice about; some I found include for example:

What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying
A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering
Google

I think we shouldn't be in a hurry to reach the point of dying, though.


text:
What to make of Jhanas as explained in the pragmatic dharma movement?
In this set of videos two experts (Kenneth Folk and Nick Halay) go through the 13(?) jhanas
Several aspects of this video make me wonder - primarily, I find it curious that they can speak and move their limbs while being in a jhana. I notice Nick instinctively wipes his nose at 7:18, and rubs his eye a little later, all while supposedly in the third and fourth jhanas!
Can others with jhana experience or with experience in the pragmatic dhamma movement comment, and help me understand? What am I seeing here?
Are they really speaking of the same jhanas that we commonly understand from the teachings?

I don't see a problem with moving limbs while in jhana, but speaking is a bit too much! :)) Technically it's not impossible, but practically it makes you question the legitimacy. 13 jhanas sounds suspicious. Which ones do they name? I've not seen the video and not planning to :)

@AndreiVolkov It's the instinctive wiping of the nose that got me, one doesn't get distracted by or even feel such things in or even around the jhanas. I've heard Ramakrishna Paramahansa - a spiritual giant was able to describe the lower jhanas while in them, but when he hit the higher jhanas he couldn't open his mouth. Right after a jhana for 30-60 minutes the voice isn't even normally loud, it has a tendency to become soft. Speaking normally as they do is usually too harsh on the meditator, and forcefully doing so pulls one out of the jhana, or its afterglow.

I suppose they define jhanas differently than you do. Looks like mine is not exactly same as yours either. Whether their definition matches ours or not, perhaps something could be learned from their experiences or is it all useless?

Personal jhana experiences can vary of course because of our conditioning. The Buddha warns of succumbing to an addiction of mere piti, and sukha, let alone the arupa jhanas. Yet, in my personal experience addiction isn't possible, but I can see how it can be addictive to some. When I'm getting the thought that this is so good, I don't want to end it, simultaneously a thought arises that this is just tripping on a drug, and the momentary addiction ends immediately. I suppose for some that thought won't arise. The most useful thing about the jhana for me is the cleansing - I feel so pure...

...Hearted. It's like all my residual dust in my eyes is washed away even for a little while, and I get a glimpse of the possibilities of a mind constantly immersed in the bramhaviharas. If I'm behind on my regular meditation, then the quality of sleep and general demeanor for the next few days is generally excellent.

Very good question Buddho. I was waiting for someone to answer it since i could not do it.

The mindstates talked about in those videos are more related to the notion of "vipassana jhanas" rather than the visudhimagga-style very hard jhanas.
Talking in Jhanas - A Clarification Of The Relationship Between Jhanas And Ñanas
If one is familiar with the stages of insight such as talked about by the late Mahasi Sayadaw (regardless of whether one feels they are valid or not), when one reaches what he calls the 11th nana (equanimity towards formations), and experiences a moment of discontinuity which leads to a profound perceptual baseline shift (regardless of what conceptual overlay one would like to such a shift), it does give access, to many yogis I have talked with and in my own experience, to at least 4 significantly formed physically based absorption mind states and depending on the yogi, 4 more after these which are mentally based. Regardless of what you want to conceptually call them, these mind states or mental postures or fabrications of mind or are able to be called up at will of mind all due to the first cessation of the senses or discontonuity that Mahasi Sayadaw talked of occuring after the 11th nana or whatever you want to term a mind state that is wide, all encompassing, as panoramic as experience can be, seeing all phenomena of mind and body at once, even the "assumed" sensations that are misread as "self", all a flux and all a flow.
The other 4 "jhanas" referred in those videos, have been called the "pureland jhanas" in the pragmatic tradition due to Kenneth Folk naming them so. They are simply mind states that are accessible to anyone with significant mental control over the territory just pre-cessation/discontinuity at what's been called 11th nana. Regardless of what one ones to conceptually call it, the territory right before a cessation of the senses occurs, a brief discontinuity,  is fertile territory to fabricate some interesting mind states off of. Still just more fabricated compoundings though.

Unfortunately, the canonical definition for jhanas is too vague.

Quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, he enters and dwells in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied thought and sustained thought with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. (M.i,1818; Vbh.245)

Restricting only to the first jhana and Considering only the above, one could gloss over the seclusion part and interpret applied/sustained thought, rapture and happiness in any convenient way.
Probably the most superficial understanding would further conflate rapture and happiness as just some pleasant feeling, and regard applied and sustained thought as a very ordinary kind of concentration (e.g the one required to read or observe and describe something). Naturally, this would make jhana a very ordinary experience.
Richard sankman wrote a book about jhanas ("the experienxe of samadhi") where half of it is devoted to interviewing monks and lay teachers on how they interpret many of those things. Though some do not set the bar much higher, it seems none of them had such a loose understanding of jhana.
In a more traditional interpretation, the bar is higher (and jhana is nothing ordinary): the factors are more delineated, better identified and it takes a lot of practice to develop them -- like building the trust of an extremely scared animal. Even access concentration which precedes the first jhana requires some hard work.
But even here there are some disagreements (e.g. Can one hear sounds while absorbed?)
In any case, In this stronger interpretation, While it may take little time for a seasoned yogi to be absorbed (depending on how strong the factors are), i think the gross movements and speech are quite incompatible with this state. Thus, they might be telling a different story.
In my experience, the depth of tranquility and concentration before the first jhana makes it quite challenging to articulate long discursive thoughts without causing disruption -- e.g. the mere lookup for analogies to describe something would weaken the concentration significantly, as the focus moves away from the meditation object. Let alone speak such descriptions during the absorption, specially when we feel very disinclined to say a word or make disruptive movements as we progress towards it (say, when we are so focused that it requires significant effort to use any mental faculty that was already put to rest or to drive the mind away from the object of meditation).

This is a great answer. Especially the last paragraph. I can relate to that from my own practice. It is like one must be completely still in order to not cause ripples in the lake. It becomes so subtle that even the slighest movement will cause one to start over with the deepening of concentration and continued attention on the object. That is why i find it strange that they can speak and make hand gestures while doing that. Are they both having a rock-solid concentration allowing them to stray from the object in Jhana or they are not really practicing the orthodox Jhanas?

Thanks, I have the book by Shankman downloaded, it just moved near the top of my reading list. In my experience too, speech is impossible even in upacarra samadhi or even when one is in  sukha. Perhaps khanika piti is the last spot where I can speak without loss of concentration. When I've been in prolonged no thought states I have felt a distinct part of my brain start up every time I needed to speak, and shut down immediately after, so I know the meditative brain is distinct from the speech brain, and theoretically I suppose it is possible to operate both by rapidly switching to&fro.

@Buddho. There is also a book by Ajahn Brahm. It's called "The Jhanas" and it can be found here.

Of course speaking or gesticulating while in the jhanas is perhaps up there with levitating - in the amount of mastery it might require. Which makes me pretty certain that the definition of a jhana that the two in the video are operating on is perhaps different from the standard. I've never got much use from the sutta on the bath man rolling bath powder. Perhaps it is like a zen koan, where some meaning will leap out at me when I least expect it, but read like a standard sutta that definition is pretty useless for me.

@Buddho which sutta is that?

@SriLanka Thanks, I have read his Mindfulness, bliss and beyond - which has a hefty section on jhanas. He recounts a case where a student of his didn't wake from a jhana even when his wife suspected a heart attack and had him rushed away in an ambulance and given a shock with a defibrillator. Apparently he woke up much later in the hospital and had no idea why he was there. I think I'd wake up if someone struck me in the chest or applied a defibrillator, so there's that.

@Ryan http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.028.than.html

@Buddho. I remember Ajahn Brahm telling about that story in one if his videos. Hehe.

There was also a story he told where apparently a monk meditating in the forest survived the forest being flooded by a flash flood while in the jhanas, coming out of the jhanas in a different place from where he originally sat. So according to this account, the human metabolism is greatly decreased while in the jhanas, barely requiring any oxygen?

If one takes the Buddha's definition of a proper jhana attainer from AN05.28, then the bar is very very high indeed. Having developed the five factors of concentration one must be able to access any of the supernormal powers at will - walk through walls, become a thousand people and become one again, fly in the air. Even in the hushed biographies of Arhats of the modern day, the most common power is seeing into other's minds or having divine vision/ear. Neem Karoli Baba is someone who according to many students wielded such powers at will. I'd rather go with this benchmark than a diluted one.

Are they really speaking of the same jhanas that we commonly understand from the teachings?

The simplest definition of a Jhana I found in Abhidharmartha Pradipika (vol 1, p 71): collect and focus your wondering mind so it is not wavering and stays with the object to be so it is conducive to closer examination such that all properties of the examined known in detail. (Translation is mine hence may not be perfect.)
If you go by the 5 fold classification of Jhana and 4 Arupa Jhana and Niroda Samapatti the maximum you can come up with is 10 Jhanas though traditionally this is 8 plus Niroda Samapatti.

I find it curious that they can speak and move their limbs while being in a jhana

You lose your ability to speak once you do not have Vitakka and Vicara. Hence this looks fishy to be from a traditional perspective.

I notice Nick instinctively wipes his nose at 7:18, and rubs his eye a little later, all while supposedly in the third and fourth jhanas!

When you are in the 4th Jhana in the traditional perspective your bodily activities have calmed down. You do not breathe nor speak and perhaps even not move. Id do not think you can direct action beyond the 2nd Jhana when Vitakka and Vicara has ceased.


text:
What are the various Buddhist scriptural designations and to what do they refer?
In my readings so far (mostly Theravada based), I come across many scriptural references - for example, "AN," "MN 118," etc. To what do these designations refer? Is there some sort of concordance that summarizes the actual texts that these designations refer to?

Edit: Added some extra tags to your question to increase discoverability. Please roll-back if not suitable.

They refer to various sutra collections within the Tipitaka.
Like for example,

AN = Anguttara Nikaya
MN = Maddhiyama Nikaya

MN 118 would be the 118th sutta in the MN - which can be found in the MN index linked previously; or, Google is many times pretty helpful if you put in "MN 118 tipitaka" it should lead you to  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

The Tipitaka (Pali ti, "three," + pitaka, "baskets"), or Pali canon,
  is the collection of primary Pali language texts which form the
  doctrinal foundation of Theravada Buddhism. The Tipitaka and the
  paracanonical Pali texts (commentaries, chronicles, etc.) together
  constitute the complete body of classical Theravada texts.
The Pali canon is a vast body of literature: in English translation
  the texts add up to thousands of printed pages. Most (but not all) of
  the Canon has already been published in English over the years.
  Although only a small fraction of these texts are available on this
  website, this collection can be a good place to start.
The three divisions of the Tipitaka are:
Vinaya Pitaka
The collection of texts concerning the rules of conduct
  governing the daily affairs within the Sangha — the community of
  bhikkhus (ordained monks) and bhikkhunis (ordained nuns). Far more
  than merely a list of rules, the Vinaya Pitaka also includes the
  stories behind the origin of each rule, providing a detailed account
  of the Buddha's solution to the question of how to maintain communal
  harmony within a large and diverse spiritual community.
Sutta Pitaka
The collection of suttas, or discourses, attributed to the Buddha and
  a few of his closest disciples, containing all the central teachings
  of Theravada Buddhism. (More than one thousand sutta translations are
  available on this website.)
  The suttas are divided among five nikayas
  (collections):
  Digha Nikaya — the "long collection"
  Majjhima Nikaya —
  the "middle-length collection"
  Samyutta Nikaya — the "grouped
  collection"
  Anguttara Nikaya — the "further-factored collection"
  Khuddaka Nikaya — the "collection of little texts":
  Khuddakapatha
  Dhammapada
  Udana
  Itivuttaka
  Sutta Nipata
  Vimanavatthu
  Petavatthu
  Theragatha
  Therigatha
  Jataka
  Niddesa
  Patisambhidamagga
  Apadana
  Buddhavamsa
  Cariyapitaka
  Nettippakarana (included only in the Burmese
  edition of the Tipitaka)
  Petakopadesa (  "   "  )
  Milindapañha (  "  "  )
Abhidhamma Pitaka
The collection of texts in which the underlying doctrinal principles
  presented in the Sutta Pitaka are reworked and reorganized into a
  systematic framework that can be applied to an investigation into the
  nature of mind and matter.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/


text:
Should modernization of the environment lead to renewal of teaching texts?
We now have a global network, where English language is used as a primary language  and American culture has its own culture codes (you saw that rainbow flag, etc). Shouldn't Buddhist texts be rewritten with the goal of being easily understandable? If texts use modern vocabulary and describe our surroundings with everyday words, then the spreading of Buddhist ideas will be wider than it is now.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE, have you read the guide to new members? I don't have a huge problem with the question, but I suspect this would invite largely opinion based answers. Perhaps you could suggest some specific changes you'd like to see in Buddhist texts, that would keep it confined to a limited discussion of merits and demerits?

This is a problem every religion grapples with - purity vs popularity. I think Buddhism has done okay so far, though there are some esoteric sects that most Buddhists would have trouble recognizing as Buddhism. Perhaps you are comparing it to Christianity, which has certainly traveled a lot, adapting where it goes, but the religion of the desert fathers, for example, bears little to no resemblance to modern Christianity, and that is the danger.

I think this is already happening but we perhaps don't recognise it. While I've not heard of any move to completely rewrite a Buddhist canon, it is easy to find examples of books that help the reader access Buddhists texts. These could be simple primers, commentaries or retelling of traditional stories.
Breath by Breath is an example example of the extension of the commentarial  tradition of Buddhism. Larry Rosenberg picks apart the Anapanasati Sutta and really goes into each stage. I've read this twice and find it extremely useful
The anapanasati sutta isn't the only modern commentary. There's a lot more. Analayo has written Satipatthana The Direct Path to Realization which is a commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta. It's a real drill down into the sutta and is a bit more thorough and analytical than Breath by Breath.
But you don't need to get all academic to enjoy Buddhists texts. My 4 year old daughter loves the Jataka Tales as retold in the Buddha at Bedtime. It's a modern simplified version of canonical Buddhist texts - with lovely pictures and a summary from a cartoon Buddha at the end of each one. What's not to like.

In all religions with written texts, it's important these are preserved and available: changing them (e.g modernizing) is very risky.
Some authors do make translations with the aim of modernizing some texts (think of the many Tao te Ching books adapted to a certain modern subject). In the end, it's a trade off where the author invariably puts his own interpretation forward -- which is necessary in this process. So the resulting text might be more accessible, but at the risk of losing or distorting the original content.
This might be ok or not depending on the text. For example, bibliographical episodes are frequently retold in different ways, and oral tradition has a tendency of add colors to them. For the purpose of storytelling, inspiration, etc. this is fine (the ones who will have a hard time with these are probably historians trying to get to actual events) but doctrinal texts raises concerns.
Because of this risk, modernized translations of doctrines whose originals are not precisely clear are very susceptible to criticism, and could create more problems than help.
For example, in buddhist texts, many translators use the english translation "internal and external feeling", even though an alternative translation like "one's feeling and another's feeling" could be used, apparently without loss of information (i read this translation from pali is fine). But traditionally people used the former, and it's believed this form carries important nuances about the philosophical forms used in this period.
The standard alternative is to write about the subject (not a translation, but an explanation) or write exegesis around the originals, using modern vocabulary to explain them in detail, which explicitly points out what the original is, and where the author is driving his own interpretation.

Buddhism has so far struck a pretty good balance of cultural assimilation versus tradition wherever it has traveled. The thing with Buddhism is there is no central power figure like the Pope, so if the followers in a part of the world believe they need to fine tune the religion to suit their needs they don't need anyone's permission. In fact since Buddhism is constantly evolving without great hue and cry we may not notice it.
Religions with a central authority figure can theoretically respond very powerfully to changing circumstances since a diktat from above must be respected by all. In practice we see that since such changes often require great courage and conviction from the top, they rarely happen.
A decentralized religion like Buddhism often makes changes pretty quickly, but hardly anybody has the power or authority to make it widespread.
Both ideas are good in their own way.
For example, compared to the momentous effort that was the introduction of liberation theology in Catholicism, changes of similar import like Engaged Buddhism happen all the time in Buddhism without raising eyebrows.
I will list here a few selected changes, though there are too many to list here.
1. John Kabat-Zinn's Mindfulness based stress reduction
John Kabat-Zinn's secular mindfulness based stress reduction program is one such independent offshoot of Buddhism, where the word Buddhism isn't even mentioned. It is administered in a hospital and academic setting, which is very appropriate, harking back to the roots of Buddhism where the monasteries were originally called Viharas or Universities. The Buddha himself is often noted to be like a physician diagnosing and prescribing medicine for the mind.
2. The Dalai Lama's engagement with science and technology
The Dalai Lama is involved in bringing western scientific concepts into Buddhism with his involvement with several academics and by creating organizations like the Mind and Life Institute.

I have often remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically
  verified insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now
  to modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional
  cosmology as found in ancient Buddhist texts.
  ~H.H. The XIV Dalai Lama

I think it is not just Buddhism that must adapt to the modern world, but the modern world that must come to terms with the wisdom of ancient traditions like Buddhism which place great emphasis on empathy and compassion to nature and to humanity.
As the Dalai Lama again says,

Purely from the scientific point of view, the creation of nuclear
  weapons is a truly amazing achievement. However, since this creation
  has the potential to inflict so much suffering through unimaginable
  death and destruction, we regard it as destructive. It is the ethical
  evaluation that must determine what is positive and what is negative.
  Until recently, this approach of segregating ethics and science, with
  the understanding that the human capacity for moral thinking evolves
  alongside human knowledge, seems to have succeeded.
Today, I believe that humanity is at a critical crossroad. The radical
  advances that took place in neuroscience and particularly in genetics
  towards the end of the twentieth century have led to a new era in
  human history. Our knowledge of the human brain and body at the
  cellular and genetic level, with the consequent technological
  possibilities offered for genetic manipulation, has reached such a
  stage that the ethical challenges of these scientific advances are
  enormous. It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not
  been able to keep pace with such rapid progress in our acquisition of
  knowledge and power. Yet the ramifications of these new findings and
  their applications are so far-reaching that they relate to the very
  conception of human nature and the preservation of the human species.
  So it is no longer adequate to adopt the view that our responsibility
  as a society is to simply further scientific knowledge and enhance
  technological power and that the choice of what to do with this
  knowledge and power should be left in the hands of the individual. We
  must find a way of bringing fundamental humanitarian and ethical
  considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development,
  especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical
  principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and
  scientific inquiry. Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular
  ethics" that embrace the key ethical principles, such as compassion,
  tolerance, a sense of caring, consideration of others, and the
  responsible use of knowledge and power - principles that transcend the
  barriers between religious believers and non-believers, and followers
  of this religion or that religion. I personally like to imagine all
  human activities, including science, as individual fingers of a palm.
  So long as each of these fingers is connected with the palm of basic
  human empathy and altruism, they will continue to serve the well-being
  of humanity. We are living in truly one world.

3. Thich Nhat Hanh's Engaged Buddhism

Engaged Buddhism is just Buddhism. When bombs begin to fall on people,
  you cannot stay in the meditation hall all of the time. Meditation is
  about the awareness of what is going on-not only in your body and in
  your feelings, but all around you.
When I was a novice in Vietnam, we young monks witnessed the suffering
  caused by the war. So we were very eager to practice Buddhism in such
  a way that we could bring it into society. That was not easy because
  the tradition does not directly offer Engaged Buddhism. So we had to
  do it by ourselves. That was the birth of Engaged Buddhism.
Buddhism has to do with your daily life, with your suffering and with
  the suffering of the people around you. You have to learn how to help
  a wounded child while still practicing mindful breathing. You should
  not allow yourself to get lost in action. Action should be meditation
  at the same time.

And this message of Engaged Buddhism is a wake up call for many who would like nothing better than to retire to a mountain top and meditate all day.

John Malkin: People often feel that they need to choose between being
  engaged in social change or working on personal and spiritual growth.
  What would you say to those people?
Thich Nhat Hanh: I think that view is rather dualistic. The practice
  should address suffering: the suffering within yourself and the
  suffering around you. They are linked to each other. When you go to
  the mountain and practice alone, you don’t have the chance to
  recognize the anger, jealousy and despair that’s in you. That’s why
  it’s good that you encounter people—so you know these emotions. So
  that you can recognize them and try to look into their nature. If you
  don’t know the roots of these afflictions, you cannot see the path
  leading to their cessation. That’s why suffering is very important for
  our practice.

4. The Revival of lay meditation in the Vipassana movement in Burma
Ledi Sayadaw and Mingun Sayadaw are credited with reviving contemplative Buddhism in Burma as a response to British Colonial rule. By bringing meditation outside monasteries to laity the meditative practices survived the British suspension of state support for monasteries. Since lay people couldn't be expected to spare the time to master the jhanas the new emphasis on khanika-samadhi or dry-insight as a route to enlightenment was revolutionary. This very accessible meditation technique has spread widely across the world and is the basis for almost all popular Western meditation in the insight tradition. Here's an essay from Tricycle magazine by Erik Braun, who also has a book The Birth of Insight: Meditation, Modern Buddhism, and the Burmese Monk Ledi Sayadaw

In less than 75 years, from 1886 to the mid-1950s, meditation had
  grown from the pursuit of the barest sliver of the population to the
  duty of the ideal citizen.

Shouldn't Buddhist texts be rewritten with the goal of being easily understandable?

An effort to make Dhamma more accessible has be done by Piya Tan: http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/
Buddhism should also be in a language which is not commonly used (Pali) to preserve the meaning and teaching. In a used language the meaning of words continuously change.

If texts use modern vocabulary and describe our surroundings with everyday words, then the spreading of Buddhist ideas will be wider than it is now.

Best way to teach definitely is terms and language familiar to an audience. (pariyāya,dassāvī) See: (Dhamma,desaka) Udāyī Sutta