text:
Purpose beyond first Jhana?
If access concentration, or at most the first jhana, is the requirement for successful insight meditation what is the purpose of the other form and formless jhanas?

Can you provide more detail? i.e. "required" according to who? Not all teaching lineages require jhana, and there are even lineages that, IMHO, discourage jhana.

Although the higher jhanas are not required, they're strongly encouraged by the Buddha evident in the high frequency with which they are mentioned throughout the suttas. Ven. Gunaratana in his "The Jhanas" wrote:

The Buddha is constantly seen in the suttas encouraging his disciples to develop jhana. The four jhanas are invariably included in the complete course of training laid down for disciples. They figure in the training as the discipline of higher consciousness (adhicittasikkha), right concentration (sammasamadhi) of the Noble Eightfold Path, and the faculty and power of concentration (samadhindriya, samadhibala). Though a vehicle of dry insight can be found, indications are that this path is not an easy one, lacking the aid of the powerful serenity available to the practitioner of jhana. The way of the jhana attainer seems by comparison smoother and more pleasurable (A.ii,150-52). The Buddha even refers to the four jhanas figuratively as a kind of Nibbana: he calls them immediately visible Nibbana, factorial Nibbana, Nibbana here and now (A.iv,453-54).

Initially you don't need much Jhana to start with. (This is needed towards the end of the journey but if you can develop it from the start it is well and good but not necessary. ) But wisdom is built on the foundations of concentration, so as your practice matures and wisdom increase you have to develop concentration to match wisdom.
In the general case, wisdom and concentration are co integrated, wisdom doesn't too far from the level of concentration you have, like a dog on a leash or 2 ends of a stick. (Maha Salayatanika Sutta mentions balancing the two.)
So it don't matter if wisdom or concentration develops in you 1st. If concentration develops use this as a tool to develop wisdom. If wisdom develops then use it to develop morality and concentration, and further use this to develop wisdom further. This is a cycle where you develop each item in increments.
So to start your insight practice shallow level of Jhana is sufficient but you have to deepen it to progress into higher insights.

The formless jhanas are useful for understanding later stages but all require at least first jhana to cultivate successfully. In some circles they are considered recreational or dangerous to dwell in unnecessarily.
Remember that the Buddha mastered these states and declared them all incomplete.
According to Daniel Ingram in "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" and many others, only access concentration is required to have a reasonable chance at success with insight practice.
1st jhana is reccommended though because this is a stabilized form of access.
Even though this is true, it doesn't change the fact that the 4th jhana is true concentration.
Asking what the point of true concentration is... is like asking "what is the point of perfect, clean water? It is just more skillful and beneficial.
The 1st jhana, 2nd, and 3rd are inferior and have flaws.
The 1st jhana is fuddled and filled with coarse thoughts and effort--relative to the other jhanas. It is still a supermundane release far beyond the scope of the Desire Realm, beyond anything any typical person can experience in their lifetime.
The 2nd jhana, although filled with unsurpassed joy and unprecedented effortlessness, is still joy--an emotion that is not conducive to perfect equanimity and stability.
The 3rd jhana, has left behind the flawed joy of the previous jhanas and is filled with extreme bliss and focus. This is nearly perfect but this bliss is so perfect and so amazing that it is said that the brahamas who are in the 3rd jhana heaven (the person died and was reborn in the 3rd jhana heaven) were totally physically blissed out... that they couldn't come down to listen to the Buddha's sermons, even at his invitation.
And finally, we come to the 4th jhana. The perfect place of one-pointedness. The place you want to be if you want to get things done so to speak because mental clarity and focus is at its apex and all the other (positive) slightly unstable qualities of the previous jhanas subside.
I hope this makes sense and I hope you will study the details for yourself further, especially by reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanations and The Mind Experiment by Bavo Lievens (from whom I shared the above story about 3rd jhana).

I down-voted this answer because of the statement at the top: "The formless jhanas are usually considered either recreational or dangerous." This is a vague statement that certainly contradicts the teachings offered in the Pali canon, e.g., here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html

Yes, it is a typical scriptural assertion but the formless ive read in commentary not considered necessary. They can be extremely helpful in experientally  understanding and familiarizing with the later sages of insight. Nonetheless purposeful training in the formless jhanas is not considered necessary by the anapana tradition.

Something's being 'not considered necessary' I take to be quite different than something's being 'recreational or dangerous.' If they can be extremely helpful I would not consider undertaking them to be recreational, which I take it implies frivolity or uselessness.

The undertaking of them is only considered unnecessary for the beginner practitioner who has not yet achieved 1st jhana anyways since that level of concentration is at least necessary (to enter into these psychologically altered four stages which the Gautama Buddha later gave up them after mastering them claiming that they are not the Ultimate)!

It seems misleading to say that he 'gave them up' since, although he declared that they were not the goal, he continued to practice and preach them, including entering each of the formless jhanas immediately before he died: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fnt-58

The formless jhanas do not have to be targeted to succeed. They do not have to be purposefully cultivated in order for them to just happen (as they do in the vipassana jhanas).
There are many other crucial things that must be emphasized in order to get to intermediate and advanced stages in in Buddhism and the formless jhanas are not one of them.

Those intent on Anagami or Arhatship in this very life will require to gain mastery of the 4 jhanas. Sotapatti or Sakadagami does not require mastery of the jhanas, but requires a fair level of tranquil concentration akin to the first jhana. This level of concentration will materialize as a virtuous one with right view practices yoniso manasikara diligently. For Anagami and Arhatship even after the attainment of the two lower states one still requires to progress to the 4th jhana. We see the Buddha encouraging and advising Ven Maha Moggallana post Sotapatti with the latter's jhana practice. Your question reminded me of something I read about Ven Sariputta's teachings philosophy, where he was most concerned with a student up to the point the student attained to right view (ie. Sotapatti) thus assured of Nibbana albeit with several life times to go, verses Ven. Moggallana teaching philosophy where he considered any form of existence like excrement and encouraged his students to aim for nothing short of Arhatship, teaching them the mastery of the 4 Jhanas.

This is not an orthodox view... do you have any source to back it up?

I would agree with @Kaveenga. This is also the option expressed by S.N.Goenkaji in the Dhamma talks in the 20 day course if I remember right. Also Banthe Vimalasiri also emphasise the Jhana but I am not exactly sure if this is his take on the matter.

"All noble disciples acquire the right concentration of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is defined as the four Jhānas. This need not be understood to mean that stream-enterers and once-returners already possess Jhāna before they reach stream-entry. The formula for right concentration may imply only that they must eventually attain the Jhānas in the course of developing the path to its culmination in arahantship." - Bhikkhu Bodhi, "The Jhanas and the lay disciple" (2001)


text:
Where do thoughts arise?
I have been reading books on Buddhism, Zen, meditation. All mention observing one's thoughts and let it pass. My question is where does thought arise from and do thoughts create karma by just thinking about them?
Thanks

This isn't an answer really, but it is a clue to one aspect of thinking.  Try this exercise:  Say something - notice physically where the words come from - where in the body or where in space.  Now pay attention to your thoughts -  notice how they come from the same place as spoken words.   Knowing this, one can distinguish between thought and emotion.

Thoughts are created by the mind's natural activity. It's what the mind does. It's like a muscle or hair follicle. What matters is our attachment to that thought. Karma is simply energy and attachment and by attaching ourselves to the thoughts of a temporary vehicle (our body and mind), we are destined for suffering.
If you're a fellow geek, you may get a lot out of the research from Dr. Fred Travis. He studies the brain and has done a lot of research on meditation and brain activity. He basically shows that meditation helps us rise past lower states of consciousnesses by disconnecting that "word = object" mentality. See Youtube, Brain Plasticity and Transcendental Meditation with Dr Fred Travis.
Letting go of karma is thus attaining a higher form of humanity.

Karma is most certainly created by thought!  The Buddha described three doors of action through which karma is generated (see the Upajjhatthana Sutta as one example of this teaching).  One door is body (i.e. actions done with the body), another door is speech (verbal expression, writing, etc.), and the last door is mind.  This final door is characterized by any desire, thinking, planning, etc.  Karma literally means action.  It's a kind of moral momentum.  Acting in one way strengthens and ingrains a certain behavior.  Ruminating about something in your mind gives just as much strength to it as action.  It habituates you to that pattern.
As to where those thoughts are coming from, well, that's tougher to pin down and it's really not so important from a meditative standpoint.  You'll be hard pressed to point to one thought and say this came from this or that came from that; moreover, it's just going to distract your concentration.  Think of your mind as one of those snow globes.  All of those little flakes flying around are instances of karma, maybe some deeper expression of your subconscious (us yogacara folk call that alayavijnana), or whatever.  It's your job to first let them settle.  Worry about examining them later.

Sensation [in combination with perception] is the mind conditioner. Based on sensations further thinking and pondering arises which intern to fabrication. Fabrications lead to further experiences which give rise to sensation and cycle continues.
According to Abhidhamma thoughts are heart based.

Sensation is the mind "conditioner". Excellent translation. Regards

Great that you like how I put it.

What you need to realize is the one place where Buddhism & psychology does not agree. Psychology treats mind as a permanent thing and thoughts as its product. But as to Lord Buddha Mind & Thoughts are the product of a process.
And as to Buddhism Mind is not a single thing.
Let me explain...

What is this process?
There are six receptors (aggregates) with a human (Eyes,Ears,Tongue,Nose,Body,Mind), These capture Light,Sound,Taste,Smell,Touch,Logic.
What gets captured creates it's own unique process called "Sanskara". Which then go on to feed its content (Liking,Hating or Neutral feelings) to a process called "Vinyana". These are six versions of possible Vinyanas that comes to existence when the aggregates come to contact with it's own version of input (Eyes with light,Ears with sound,Tongue with taste,etc). But a Vinyanas are only created if the being is aware & the aggregates are not damaged. Vinyanas are not with a permanent existence, these are born with the aggregates functioning and they cease with the end of process.
Thoughts are the mind,its process of occurring and ceasing is the mind. But Mind is not a place or a thing but a product of a process which cease to exist with the end of it's creator (the set of thoughts that created it in the first place)
I understand this explanation can be a bit hard to understand so here's a link read and learn this fully: "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" (edited by Bhikkhu Boddhi)

**Sanskara - Sanskara is the thing that is capable of creating another set of aggregates (receptors) for a being. It has got its name from the meaning " The thing that is made as an result of many others combining which has the ability to create the components that makes it again.So simply without sanskara there's no next life."
**Vinyana - If you compare the concept that we call "Mind" to "Vinyana",it is  essentially the same thing. But the difference is there are six possible Vinyanas that gets created every time the aggregates come to contact with it's own version of input.

Great and complete answer. When making citation use a format like A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi describing what they are are clicking on. This generally will be received well by other uses on this site. Also will help in more up votes and also perhaps not get down vote. I am not very particular on this there will be other users who might be. Also see: http://stackoverflow.com/help/referencing for quatations.

Some of your other posts also have this issue. If you have time perhaps you can re visit them and consider revising them to properly summarize and describe the links. E.g. Distortions of the Mind and Retreat Practice Audio Dhamma Talk By
Bonnie Duran This alone might attract up votes and also users will become more receptive to your future contributions also as your answers are well written. Otherwise your writing is very good. Hope this information might help you and also others in the future.

Though not relevant in this context. If it is audio or video perhaps make the distinction as these files might be large and consume more bandwidth. Users may be unhappy if this happens. I am not sure if we have a defined policy on this but other sites this is so. Also tendency to click on which are not properly described is very low. Worst case non fully descriptive links is they can be viewed as spam links though legitimate (users do not know this by just looking at the links). I have seen this happen in many forums and sites. Best avoid the extra hansel by being thorough in the 1st instance.

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena ,  Thanks suminda! I never thought of these things before. i will do better next time. :-)

Great this was helpful.

Just as our sense organs have their definite natural functions (the eyes see, ears listen, nose smells, skin feels or the tongue tastes) the natural function of mind is to generate thoughts. It is doing for what it is made for. But we must not necessarily cling to all of its thoughts. We can watch or observe or witness them by standing apart, non-clinging to them. As our detachment grows the mind produces less and less and less thoughts. One day it is all silent. That is the Buddhahood.

Bhikkhus, in dependence on an element there arises a perception, there arises a view, there arises a thought.
SN 14.13

Bhikkhus, sensual thoughts arise with a source, not without a source; thought of ill will arises with a source, not without a source;
  thought of harming arises with a source, not without a source. And how
  is this so?
In dependence on the sensuality element there arises sensual perception; in dependence on the sensual perception there arises
  sensual intention; in dependence on the sensual intention there arises
  sensual desire; in dependence on the sensual desire there arises
  sensual passion; in dependence on the sensual passion there arises a
  sensual quest.
In dependence on the ill will element there arises perception of ill will...
In dependence on the cruelty element there arises perception of harming...
In dependence on the renunciation element there arises perception of renunciation...
In dependence on the non-ill will element there arises perception of non-ill will...
In dependence on the harmlessness element there arises perception of harmlessness. In dependence on the perception of harmlessness there
  arises intention of harmlessness; in dependence on intention of
  harmlessness there arises desire for harmlessness; in dependence on
  desire for harmlessness there arises passion for harmlessness; in
  dependence on passion for harmlessness there arises a quest for
  harmlessness.
SN 14.12

Where does element come from? What is element?

Like everything else THOUGHT boils down to energy, and the "id" is the source of all psychic energy, from the instincts through to higher intuition. Id = the reservoir of all mental energy: id to the flow of libido, the life force, into ideas which define our identity by inflating thought bubbles, which deflate into mortido, the death wish, which dissolve into the so-called Void or Sunyata, from where the Ideal Self or Non-Self arises. (tried to keep it brief, if you want more google, cordery poems.

"'All phenomena are rooted in desire.[1]
"'All phenomena come into play through attention.
"'All phenomena have contact as their origination.
"'All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place.
'All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state.
"'All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle.
"'All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state.
"'All phenomena have release as their heartwood.
"'All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.
"'All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.'
"On being asked this by those who have gone forth in other sects, this is how you should answer."

Rooted Sutta
Following Dhammapada several translations of a verse;

“ Mind is the origin of events. They have mind as the chief, and are
mind-impelled.
“ All experience is preceded by mind, led by mind, made by mind.
“ Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all
mind-wrought.
“ Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief;

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Thing-hood in Buddhism and meaningfulness
I often struggle with feelings of despair about not so much that I will die but my mortality, my insignificance in a time as time never ends.
But it also occurred to me that actually everyone is in the same boat (so to speak) and so as long as we don't let things define our value, then maybe life has meaning and value.
Is that anything to do with emptiness, or is emptiness more an ontological doctrine than anything about value and meaningfulness ?

There are two things im curious about. 1. Where did you learn that time never ends? 2. Why do you want something to have a meaning?

Sounds like emptiness to me :)

Maybe you would find the answers to Time in Buddhism interesting.
You wrote, "insignificance in a time as time never ends."
The Dharma is meant to be akalika i.e. "timeless", "immediate", "now", and/or "perpetual".

@ChrisW thanks, but personally i can't cognitively buy into that fully, sounds like wittgenstein to me

@Lanka i wouldn't say i "learnt" that time doesn't end, but it seems fairly analytically likely. it's not gonna end when i 'die' anyway, is it? unless unless... but anyway, i want life to have meaning for some kind of redemption.

I think you should contemplate thus:

There were many Buddha's before your current Buddha but their significance and influence has come to an end. My influence on earth is comparatively more insignificant. Any influence or value you bring on the earth has a finite time span. No one is indispensable in the long run. In the grand scheme of things you cannot attach a meaning off significance to your existance, life and influence.

But only until your polarity in looking for significance of existance is subdued. For a lasting solution you have to do Vipassana.

Looking for meaning or lasting influence you are trying to exert some control to you environment which you cannot and lead to misery as if it does not materialise you might think of yourself as a failure. You can try without being too attached to result of your influence.
Trying to give meaning to any thing, you are dealing with concepts and perception. Reality will always be different, hence disappointment. So trying to give meaning to anything will not be entirely satisfactory.

hmm, both seem difficult. i try and find some solace in pursuing artistic er pursuits (i'm doing an MA) but... it's all so believable if you see what i mean at all.

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


text:
How can I remedy the erratic energy-power that arises from vipassana aka cessation-contemplation meditation so I can feel more in-control?
I notice that when I don't meditate it is easier to ignore things (e.g. other people, situations) and focus on my own thing--even though I might not be as concentrated. This is of course not the right way to live--like a zombie.
On the other hand though, when I meditate well--really well, noticing my thoughts and being very present... I notice that afterwards I have lots of energy. I become highly productive and get things, powered by Truth and unconditional joy, happiness and acceptance.
In social situations I don't know if this is very beneficial--I can act quickly and I feel like some people might perceive me as very smart but erratic. Maybe it is because of my lack of social finesse but when I am talking with a woman I might be a little erratic, unusually detached, and just have some abnormal responses. I also tend to be impatient and don't care to develop a relationship with a woman as "normal" people would, asking her questions about her family, etc. I'd rather talk about the world, analyze her peronality, and do brain-y but unattractive, boring things which actually drains energy.
A part of me thinks this is a problem but the bodhisattva part of me says, who cares just keep practicing even whilst sharing conversation with others because I am definitely causing no harm and oftentimes sharing things with people they are happy for later...
How can I remedy the erratic energy-power that arises from vipassana aka cessation-contemplation meditation so I can feel more in-control? Especially in social situations.
I am not sure it is a problem at all actually because I certainly do no harm to others and I am definitely more productive in the rest of my life.

From your description of talking to women, I feel like I know you. You must have a relationship with a scholar, or person who is infinitely curious. Most people will not want to talk about academic subjects and just focus on the little things

"The little things"... this perturbs me to no end, it feels like my universally expansive mind has to shrink down tremendously to do so.. But I know this idea I have is one-sided because these little things often matter the most to the other person and often contain many big lessons about the Big Thing and have many, many other benefits when I do force myself to do "small talk."

You do not specify what sort of meditation you practice (saying vipassana or cessation-contemplation doesn't tell much), but Buddhist meditation shouldn't be a direct cause for "erratic energy-power". It should lead to an overall more balanced, tranquil state of mind that is energetic, but not excessively so.
What is more likely is that your meditation has brought up or accentuated qualities of your own mind that lay dormant, and you are now being forced to deal with them. This is common, and these qualities should, in the case of vipassana meditation become objects of meditation themselves.
In no case should one try to "remedy" phenomena in vipassana meditation - the object is to see things as they are, not change them.
The same goes for gaining a sense of control; this is in direct contravention of the concept of anatta, so it should not be aspired to. One should rather aspire to discard the need for control in favour of clear vision; it is through clear vision that one comes to navigate life's difficulties, not through forced change.

“sabbe dhammā anattā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.
"All dhammas are non-self" - when one sees this with wisdom,
and thence becomes diinterested in suffering, this is the path to purification.
-- Dhp. 279

It is probably true that a successful meditator becomes less successful in certain social situations, e.g. picking up dates or entertaining friends, but this is more because of the unwholesome expectations of the other parties involved than a fault of the meditator who will still be friendly, cordial, and kind.

If you end up with more energy switch to developing concentration.
Also you should look at calming the fabrications. In Anapana if you note the length of the breath, which nostril it is going and coming at what proportions, you breath become very slow and eventually stops for some time. Then continue to watch the sensations in the upper lip. Look at the sensation any metal states create around you head.
In case you get lethargic or sleepy start scanning the body using large areas and in rapid speed. If you are not too sleepy then try looking at just sensations in the upper lip or your mouths upper plate while placing you tongue on the place of concentration.  These will stir up energy.
When doing your daily activities look at sensations in your body. Shyness, being elicited, etc. and other personal traits sometimes have sensations associated with them. (Also you breathing will change.) By looking at them they will arise and pass away or if not you can be in more control of the situation as you know what state you are in.
(Please leave a comment if I have missed something or you need more clarification.)

Thank you so much, you have given very practical advice whereas yuttadhammo has given great advice for Right View. I do practice letting go of clinging sensations (what you have suggested), and find it extremely valuable.

@Ahmed good to hear this was helpful. Main thing is to put into practice what every suites you better and realise the results for your self.


text:
Feeling the Need to Take A Deep Breath After Developing Concentration
I am new to this site and am not entirely sure if this is an appropriate question to ask, if it is not forgive me. I practice Vipassana meditation and after some time observing the breath, I feel the need to take a deep breath in, as if I'm fixing to suffocate and require a large inhalation of Oxygen. This sensation always arises after I really feel like I have pinpointed the breath and my breathing becomes more shallow. It seems to be creating an impasse in my practice, for as I begin to feel the first Jhana arising, my mind immediately shifts its focus to the satisfaction that occurs after I breath in heavily.

Welcome to Buddhism.SE... You haven't asked a question... Please clarify what exactly you are asking.

A technicality, but I believe focusing on the breath - that's samatha, not vipassana. Jhanas are the result of samatha (concentration meditation).

If your breath becomes shallower faster than the extent you have calmed down the fabrications this tend to happen. Sometimes the breathing stops and suddenly after someone time you gasp to breathe. But again these inconsistencies reduce after some practice so might be safe not to pay attention to it and keep your focus on the breathing process.
Alternatively you might be trying to control the breath even without your knowledge. You might be "forcing" the breath to be shallow causing a gasp to breathe.

This sometimes happens to me during shamatha meditation. Through trial and error I found the best way to deal with it is to let it happen, let it come and don't resist it. If I need to take a deep breath, I notice the need, take the breath and bring my attention again back to my breathing (minding the breath). At most, what I am experiencing is just a distraction. It could be an itch, a pain, an emotion, and image in my head, a thought, or in this instance, and urge to inhale deeply. So once you notice it, just return to the breath and proceed with the practice.


text:
What are the "Qualities of the Buddha"?
What is meant by the phrase the "qualities of the Buddha"? Are these qualities to which unenlightened people can aspire or do these qualities emerge only upon enlightenment?

Following are the 9 qualities of the Buddha one should get inspiration and try to develop:

Buddho – Awakened
Sammasambuddho – Perfectly self-awakened
Vijja-carana-sampano – Endowed with higher knowledge and ideal conduct.
Sugato – Well-gone or Well-spoken.
Lokavidu – Wise in the knowledge of the many worlds.
Anuttaro Purisa-damma-sarathi – Unexcelled trainer of untrained people.
Satthadeva-Manussanam – Teacher of gods and humans.
Bhagavathi – The Blessed one
Araham – Worthy of homage. An Arahant is "one with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the true goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge."

(Sourced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Nine_virtues)

Sir, I had wrote a few words (that could be appeared as an another question, but while doing that I got my answer. Thank you for providing the missing link. You own the center of my regards.

Good that this is of help.

I remember vaguely about one sutta, A Prince heard about Buddha's great reputation and he was skeptical. He wanted to investigate that himself so he sent his most trusted advisor to camp out near jeta grove to report back his opinion and what he saw in buddha.  The advisor camped out for seven months to make sure he saw the true buddha not just an act.
And the report contained mostly about buddha's demeanors ...
 Such as buddha would walk with his eyes  downward at the groud at a full length of a bamboo tree (about 50 feet).
Buddha would turn his entire body to look at something to his left or right (not just turning his head).
His shoulders would not sway as he walked.
He would not swing his arms as he walked.
He would step his right foot out first when he started to go somewhere.
His body would not go up and down as he walked.
When he sit to teach dhama or to eat, he would not rest his back on a backrest.
He would not sit with one knee up.
His robe was not too tight or too loose.
He would speak just loud enough for all his audience to hear and not beyond..etc.
Many other things in that report.   It gives us some ideas to imagine what buddha was like in those time.
But def the 9 Qualities in the first answer is something a buddhist has to learn.
Could anyone please let me know if you know this sutta?   Thanks

Hi Dean: welcome to the site. Would you mind reposting what you wrote as a new separate question, using the Ask a Question, and assigning tags to the question like [tag:the-buddha] and [tag:reference-request]? I ask because I think that other people are more likely to see your question and maybe answer it if you post as a new question.

hi Chris.  thanks for kind words.  reference request is a very good place to post it.   thanks

"What are the “Qualities of the Buddha”?"
Qualities of 'Bhagava Araham Sammasambuddho' is infinite and cannot be known by any human being.
Please see Sampasadaniya Sutta of Digha Nikaya.
The expression "qualities of the Buddha" belong to English Buddhism. Oxford Dictionaries define the 'the Buddha' as a historical figure that lived about 25 centuries ago-his birth date or the date of death is unknown.
However, the Tipitaka published by the Pali Text Society refer to a Bhagava Araham Sammasambuddho, in the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas. Most of the words in the two Pitakas are utterences of Bhagava; the word means a spiritual teacher.
Human beings who have no clue to even the physical form of Bhagava, what would they know about his mind?


text:
How the Buddha retained his awareness?
The Buddha (siddhartha, as per me) was a human being. He felt pain, happiness, dullness, recession for himself, his family(age-wise) and other one's and etc. How he retained his awareness? Was there some moments when he (himself) got distracted by worldly behaviour ? Please consider tags while starting wishing to answer my question.

By dullness do you mean boredom? Enlightened beings don't get bored.

As well as extraordinary personal qualities, I suspect that one of the things which helped him to be free of "distraction by worldly behaviour" was 'renunciation'.
For example, Tapussa Sutta: To Tapussa:

"So at a later time, having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of renunciation, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at renunciation, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace. Then, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.
"As I remained there, I was beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality. That was an affliction for me. Just as pain arises as an affliction for a healthy person, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality that beset me was an affliction for me.

It's worth reading that whole sutta. It describes a series of deepening revelations. He practices (practices 'renunciation' to begin with), reaches a stage, ... but it isn't complete, his "heart doesn't leap", until he thinks or realizes something which completes that state and sees him enter the beginning of the next.
Also there are many adjectives in that sutta which seem to me to describe desirable or pleasant mental states; for example, "confident", "internal assurance", "equanimity", "pleasant abiding", "peace", "infinite space / non-resistance", etc.
The Buddha had a keen sense of dukkha (the first noble truth). Assuming that he found a way to escape or avoid dukkha, to find states of being/mind which are 'better' than unsatisfactory, that seems to me a strong and perpetual incentive for him to remain enlightened (i.e. not distracted, and his living as a monk means there is also not worldly behaviour).

My idea is that the Buddha found his 'awareness' to be rewarding; for example, Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? starts,

"What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

... and ends ...

Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge
& vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the
consummation of arahantship."

My guess is that:

If his awareness is rewarding and gives him positive feedback I think that's a reason why he would keep it.
Our mundane awareness (chasing sense-objects and mental formations) is, comparatively, not very satisfactory (it's dukkha and impermanent), which is a reason why we don't retain it.

As with any enlightened person (Buddha, Arahath) you cannot get "distracted" after getting enlightened. So no the Buddha would have not got distracted at all.
There might have been such cases during the aspirant stages, which in his final birth can be divided into two parts.

Before renunciation
After renunciation

Before renunciation there would have had some degree of distractions but due past practice over countless lifetimes his awareness would have been beyond any average person. Also he developed concentration as a child which would mean that the level of distractions would be limited though not absent.
After renunciation with the development of high absorption concentrations his awareness would have increased substantially but would have been slightly short of perfect. The perfection of awareness would have been at Buddhahood.
Also one thing to not is that awareness is just one ingredient in requisites for enlightenment though an important one. You have to develop the others as well. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhipakkhiy%C4%81dhamm%C4%81


text:
Devas as gods in buddhism ,is it a corruption of original teachings..?
As far as i know , there is no mention of god ( the word God in local parlance) in buddhist texts ,the term used is Devas (beings in the higher realm). In ancient hindu texts there is mention of devas and asuras .Devas   representing good and asuras evil .The term asura is thought to be a corruption of the word Ahura of the ancient iranian Ahura mazda (possibly be a tribal conflict between hindus and zorastrian followers during ancient times).
Since the versions of buddhism practiced today are not the exact replicas of what was buddhism during buddha's times.
could this element be a corruption of the original meaning through  influence of hinduism...?    I have read somewhere about the  heavy persecution of buddhists (to bring buddhists back to the hindu fold) by brahmins and hindu kings after the death of king Asoka.
Rebirth,reincarnation etc becomes more believable as metaphorical terms. So could the term may have had the meaning like good individuals or similiar in the past.?

Brahma is the Buddhist equivalent of God, and Buddhism is pretty clear in its stance on Brahma.

But Brahma is a a god in Hinduism ..

Yes, and Buddhism is pretty clear where it stands on Brahma.

buddhists argued against a first cause too. it's difficult to answer your question until you define "gods"

In buddhism there are 31 realms of existence and each realm is inhabited by beings: animal, petas, asuras, humans, devas, brahmas.
Now these are just inhabitants: beings with different appearances and abilities according to their kamma.
Now if we translate brahma as god then it is different form the Hindu brahma in that the buddhist brahma does not create the universe etc.. buddhist do not unite with brahma in the end. Buddhist brahma dies after a few hundred aeons etc...
These are some of the definitions of the buddhist brahma which is different from the Hindu brahma.
See Buddhism and the Brahma concept

Since many many many suttas has mention of devas, and even the homage to Buddha himself called him as teachers of gods and men, it is unlikely that Buddhism got devas from Brahmanism (pre-Hinduism). What concept that was wrong in Brahmanism like the caste system, the Buddha was not afraid to dismantle that concept. Since the Buddha didn't dismantle this concept of devas (as well as rebirth), it is more likely that this is how the world really works and the sages of Vedic times got somethings right and other things wrong from their meditation experiences (like they believe in soul and ultimate Brahma).
Anyway, Rebirth has empirical evidence (google Ian Stevenson) and should not be a doubt at all, but an accepted fact of life. One just has to abandon the pervasive notion of nihilism from materialistic philosophy that says after death there is nothing. And the notion of eternalism from Abrhamic religions which says after death there is eternal heaven or hell.
Devas are possibly a few things:

Aliens/ future development of humans until they become as powerful as devas (eg. Thor). If we can evolve to become that, there are certainly some aliens who are already as powerful out there already.
Beings from higher dimensional realm (4D beings looking at 3D beings like us) or another universe with rules so awesome, the people there live long and have powers.
Beings made of Dark Matter/ Dark Energy (which are more than 90% of the mass of the Universe) We call them Dark because we hardly know anything about them. Neutrinos (one of the Dark Matter candidate) in Physics are called ghost particles because billions and more of them are going through us every second and we don't feel them at all. They rarely interact with normal matter.
Advanced form of intelligence. Eg. Artificial intelligence that has transcended the need for material base or limitations.
Simulated universes hierarchy, with one nested under the other, and the devas are programmers.


text:
How to apply meditation in the following difficult situations
I have been practicing vipassanā and mettā at least six months and I have embraced the teachings and practice in my everyday life. However there are certain situations in life where I find difficult to apply the teachings, which are the following:

How to respond to hate and violence to oneself
How to deal with hypocrisy
How to respond in situations of injustice
How to deal when someone abuses of your kindness
How to deal when someone takes advantage of your good intentions
How to apply the teachings in a society where oneself and ego
predominates

I hope somebody can give me insights on how to deal with those situations.
Thank you.
EDIT:
Thank you everyone for your responses so far. I have learned something new in every single one of them.
To be more clear regarding the questions, the objective is how to find the balance in embracing the teachings in our interactions with other beings, but also living by the rules of the capitalism society, which most of us lives on.
As an example, consider the following: someone treats you with bad speech in front of others, and you  react mindfully. In the society we live in, if you do not defend yourself and let it happen, it is highly probable that he will do it again, or others will start to take advantage of you, since you are not defending yourself. How to balance this?

Hi core. As a suggestion, you could perhaps transform your edit text into a new follow up question?

Good for you that you're following the path. However, that first year on the path can be a sensitive time as there is a power in meditation. The Buddha talked about this power as being both a way to build your path but also a trap if you dwell in it too long. Meditation is making you more sensitive to the world around you and allowing you to perceive people in a more honest way. As you're seeing, that's not always pretty.
I would suggest you practice right speech, which is a part of the Eightfold Path. Right speech forces us to be both compassionate to others while also being compassionate to ourselves. We should value ourselves as much as we value someone else. In every conversation -- in every relationship -- everyone should be equals.
The Buddha said that good speech honors the other person while also honoring yourself. If someone does something you don't like, it's not honorable to tear them down with hurtful speech. However, it's also not right to dishonor yourself by saying things you don't believe just to make them feel good. You've got to live your truth while also recognizing theirs and do so in a compassionate way.
It's a hard balancing act, but if you can do that, you'll find people will change the way they deal with you because you've changed the way you deal with the world.

"How to respond to hate and violence to oneself"

"Monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate.
In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
[...]
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words [...]' That's how you should train yourselves.
-- Kakacupama Sutta, MN 21

"How to deal with hypocrisy"

Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech; he speaks truth, adheres to truth, is trustworthy and reliable, one who is no deceiver of the world. Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide [those people] from those; thus, he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys concord, rejoices on concord, delights on concord, a speaker of words that promote concord. Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and lovable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable by many. Abandoning gossip, he abstains from gossip; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dhamma, and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial.
-- Culahatthipadopama Sutta, MN 27 (Nanamoli/Bodhi)

On a meditation setting, concerning your own thoughts:

[...] As I abided thus, diligent, ardent and resolute, a thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me. I understood thus: 'This thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna'. When I considered: 'This leads to my own affliction', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This leads to others affliction', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This leads to the affliction of both', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna', it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu  frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. [...]
But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.
-- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

and:

[...] If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, with delusion, then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them. When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. [...]
If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. [...]
If while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind.
-- Vitakkasanthāna Sutta, [Bodhi Trans.] MN 20

About the next ones: "How to respond in situations of injustice", "How to deal when someone abuses of your kindness" and "How to deal when someone takes advantage of your good intentions"...
The short answer is "do the above, rinse & repeat",  be just, don't abuse kindness of others or their good intentions. And if people are unjust and abuse kindness, still, be just and don't abuse them. If they harm you and become a hindrance, consider staying away from their reach.
Or, in the suttas words, when these situations manifest, tolerate:

“And which is intolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual, when insulted, returns the insult; when abused, returns the abuse; when bickered with, bickers in return. This is called intolerant practice.
“And which is tolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual, when insulted, doesn’t return the insult; when abused, doesn’t return the abuse; when bickered with, doesn’t bicker in return. This is called tolerant practice.
-- AN 4.164

...and endure:

“And how is a monk an endurer? There is the case where a monk is resilient to cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. This is how a monk is an endurer.
-- AN 5.140

Once it's clear the inclinations of the people around and their inclination to harm, decide how to protect yourself in the future:

(1) “And what kind of person, bhikkhus, is to be looked upon with disgust, not to be associated with, followed, and served? Here, some person is immoral, of bad character, impure, of suspect behavior, secretive in his actions, not an ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. Such a person is to be looked upon with disgust, not to be associated with, followed, and served. For what reason? Even though one does not follow the example of such a person, a bad report still circulates about oneself: ‘He has bad friends, bad companions, bad comrades.’ Just as a snake that has passed through feces, though it does not bite one, would smear one, so too, though one does not follow the example of such a person, a bad report still circulates about oneself: ‘He has bad friends, bad companions, bad comrades.’ Therefore such a person is to be looked upon with disgust, not to be associated with, followed, and served.
(2) “And what kind of person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served? Here, some person is prone to anger an.i.127 and easily exasperated. Even if he is criticized slightly he loses his temper and becomes irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he displays irritation, hatred, and bitterness. Just as a festering sore, if struck by a stick or a shard, will discharge even more matter, so too … Just as a firebrand of the tinduka tree, if struck by a stick or shard, will sizzle and crackle even more, so too … Just as a pit of feces, if struck by a stick or a shard, becomes even more foul-smelling, so too some person here is prone to anger and … displays irritation, hatred, and bitterness. Such a person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served. For what reason? With the thought: ‘He might insult me, revile me, and do me harm.’ Therefore such a person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served.
(3) “And what kind of person is to be associated with, followed, and served? Here, some person is virtuous and of good character. Such a person is to be associated with, followed, and served. For what reason? Even though one does not follow the example of such a person, a good report still circulates about oneself: ‘He has good friends, good companions, good comrades.’ Therefore such a person is to be associated with, followed, and served.
-- AN 3.27

For illustration, here's a discourse where the Buddha is insulted:

Angered & displeased, [the brahman Akkosaka] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words. [The Buddha replied]:
"that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours."
"Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all yours. It's all yours."
-- SN 7.2

"How to apply the teachings in a society where oneself and ego predominates"
By choice.

To all your questions, the answer is to respond with the mindfulness of Metta as outlined in the Karaniya Metta Sutta. There's more in Metta Sutta.
If you are mindful at all waking times with Metta, then the benefits include sleeping and waking in comfort, as well as becoming dear to other human beings.
Although these Suttas do not describe this detail, I believe that by this practice, you will begin to understand the deep-seated true motives of people who wish to do harm to others. For e.g. they may crave attention or praise, or they may want to hold on to their power or position, or they have greed or envy.
When you practise Metta, you don't set your self up as the victim or the receiving end of these people. Instead, with your mind not preoccupied with fighting or reacting back, it has the space to understand the true motives of people and deal with it in such a way that it will cease or be avoided. And for those people, without a receptive victim to attack, they may cease or take their harmful tendencies elsewhere.
From the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever
  beings there may be,  weak or strong, without exception,  long, large,
    middling, short,    subtle, blatant,    seen & unseen,  near & far,     born
  & seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart.
Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through
  anger or irritation wish for another to suffer.
As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all
  beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless
  heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without enmity or
  hate.
  Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down,  as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called
  a sublime abiding here & now.

The benefits of Metta is described in the Mettanisamsa Sutta:

1."He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human
  beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire, poison, and sword cannot
  touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His countenance is
  serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to
  attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-world.

What ever the situation you mention, what happens is your sense a situation. You perceive it as positive or negative and then mentally react to it. When you sense it you get a sensation and when you mentally perceive the situation you get a sensation.
In face of the sensations and feeling arising in whatever situation you should try to keep your composure and equanimity. 1st at

least to the extent you do not physically or verbally react, then
try to curtail your your mental reaction to the sensations with craving and clinging.

Most things seems to have already good answers, my person gives possible useful in regard of those questions:

How to deal when someone abuses of your kindness
How to deal when someone takes advantage of your good intentions
How to apply the teachings in a society where oneself and ego predominates

Paths to benevolence - Dr. Hecker
Generally my person likes to tell you straight forward that popular Vipassana is really useless if not having trained or train the basics. My person knows less, came across less people who as lay people practicing Vipassana and have actually gained anything benefical for a long therm benefit.
Generally most of them are more worse as people having not done because they usually terrible overestimete themselves and apply the certain skills for wordily interests.
So one is wise to step onto the path in a humble step by step way as well. When time and kammic prerequisites are right, when all moves on a "rightous" level, fruits can be expected. It's needed to do the raw stuff first.
No areas are more unvirtuose, unpleasant, wordily, political and violent as those where "Vipassana-Freaks" dwell (especially layman leaded, but also where monks make their livelihood in teaching such to those not prepared actually).
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]


text:
The 12 links and the womb
I think I remember reading that the an unborn child or fetus exemplifies the nidanas in a different way to children and adults.
Am I right that for Buddhists life begins at conception, but this "life" isn't fully conscious, because nama-rupa has not yet developed and so the concomitant links likewise?
Or is the difference between a fetus and a baby more like the difference between a child and an adult?

RE abortion [given that i'm not a vegetarian :/ ] maybe what's important is the potential for intelligence, and with that - bhava. a very prematurely born baby isn't fully human because we can keep them alive, but because it is already cognitively advanced enough to begin to learn, with the potential for human knowledge

DO starts with Depending on Ignorance, mental volition arise, depending on volitions consciousness arise, depending on consciousness, name & form, depending on name & form 6 sense base, depending on 6 sense base contact..etc..
It is commonly accepted (?) that the re-birth linking consciousness(patisandhi) descends into the foetus around 6 months.
At that stage of DO the resultant(vipaka) consciousness from previous existence give rise to name & form, which give rise to 6 sense base. These stages are when our form and senses are conditioned according to our resultant consciousness. The quality and characteristics of our senses etc...
Until the 6 sense base become functional and there is a sense object then only is there contact, feeling and the rest of DO.
So things like people playing music for the yet to be born baby to listen to, do make sense when the ear base is developed.
That's my take on it.

The form may not be fully developed but the Dependent Origination (DO) continues to work.
E.g. in the formless realms DO continues to work though there is no form at all.
There is no difference what ever stage of life you are in. DO continues to work until you are either in Niroda Samapathi or pass away as a Arahath.


text:
Seeking to enlighten other sentient beings - is it ever redemptive
Following on from a few question I've asked about nihilism, I wondered - quite casually if not in an idle way - whether seeking to enlighten other sentient beings (into Buddhahood) is ever redemptive of either stimulus or response (I just mean self and other)?
Because in zen you can't seek to be a buddha, and in pure land you seek deliverance from another buddha, and theravada teaches the path of the arhant.

I used to wonder whether I did good deeds just to do good deeds or because it made me feel better and I got something out of it. I laugh sometimes at how hard we think about things. Literally worrying to much about whether we are being self rightous in doing good deeds causes us to actually be self rightous just worrying about it. Who cares whether we are doing good deeds or enlightening others for our own benefit! If it actually gets people to awaken and helps others then so be it! If doing good deeds because it makes yourself feel better ends up helping other people, then we should hope that our egos be filled to the brim!

You seek to enlighten others out of compassion and not as a form of redemption.
It is your choice what path you take out of the 3 roads to liberation. Buddhahood being the longest.

Gautma Buddha is said to have been a Bodhisatva for several hundreds of thousands of aeons.
The Theravada school usually says that these extremely long periods are  required by a Buddha to train oneself. If we assume that the training took 1,000,000,000,000 years and he taught as a Buddha for 45 years, then the training to teaching ratio is extremely ineffective.
The Mahayana school says that Bodhisatvas could have become Arhats way before that but intentionally delayed this decision out of compassion to countless of beings. Hence, these extremely long periods are required by a Bodhisatva not necessarily to to train oneself, but to train others. Therefore the state of Bodhisatva is a special delay mechanism to allow a future Buddha to continue in the cycle of life and death, and gradually train countless of beings into Unbinding from the cycle of death.

In my understanding it is impossible for an Unenlightened Being to Enlighten another being.
It is impossible even for an Enlightened Being to Enlighten someone else.
The Buddha was asked why can't he enlighten all beings. The Buddha answered that he only shows the way, each has to walk on the path for himself.


text:
Is the true self reborn?
In Mahayana Buddhism, is it the true self that is reborn, or is it the empirical self?
I tend to see it described as if it's just the latter, but then if I am my true self, then doesn't that equate to annihilationism and nihilism?

There is no rebirth or reincarnation in the sense that the soul takes on a new body (rebirth / reincarnation) after death. (In Sinhala Punarupathi)
In Buddhism conception which is the continuation of the Bhava from end of the previous life (death) in the cycle of Samsara. (Punarbhava)
In other words this is a process in which there are events like birth and death. In the light that there is no everlasting unchanging core this is not a rebirth as it is not the person from the previous existence nor it is a entirely different being, but just the continuous flow of the process of becoming.
Continuation of a core entity (rebirth / reincarnation) is a Hindu concept. Buddhist concept is the continuation of the process.
Since there is a continuation (of the process), all doesn't end with death.
The confusion about rebirth is due to rebirth being used in Buddhist translation due to the limitations of the vocabulary and there is no better world to use.
(I am not sure if this fits into the Maha Yana take on the matter. )

True self is a phrase that comes up in Chan/Zen. It sometimes considered indistinguishable from the idea of an eternal soul, but never stated so clearly as that.
Empirical self, according to google is a phrase used by Kant, the psychologist William James, and I suppose it has a man in the street definition of "who you are in the sense of what is empirically provable, observable."  I don't claim to understand Kant, and I don't have time to read James, I'll use the man in the street definition.
The Mahayana philosopher who put the most thought into the question of eternalism vs extinctionalism is Nagarjuna, who came up with a two truth's doctrine, that there is a truth for the ordinary world and a truth for the transcendent, supermundane, supernatural world. I don't actually follow Nagarjuna's arguments, it's somewhat abstruse. I think he means to say in the conventional sense of truth, we're dead, in the transcendent truth, there wasn't a difference between being alive and dead.
He also rejected that we were eternal, and rejected that we would become extinct (die for good), and appealed to a middle between these as the appropriate belief. This defies my man in the street sense of logic (mortality and immortality seem pretty exclusive and opposite), but I've read that this can also be interpreted to mean that they are both possibly true, meaning it's a statement with multiple truth values, (true, false, and just don't know) and this statement about life after death isn't true, isn't false, so that leaves "just don't know".
And that gets us to having to deal with life after death on faith, which is certainly a Mahayana concept.

The conventional self is reborn. This is the relative truth.
If one analyses with logic and reasoning trying to find exactly what is the self that is reborn looking for some "true self" one comes up empty handed. This is the ultimate truth.
These together are the two truths.

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


text:
How does a person enter the 1st bhumi
In order to attain the bhumis a person needs to enter somewhere
so my question is pretty important in the way of the Bodhisattva.
How does a person enter the 1st Bhumi?

Check out Daniel Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha (http://integrateddanie.info/book -- also as PDF); at pg. 290 he discusses the bhumis, saying the 1st bhumi clearly equates with the stream-entry of the Theravada classification and that mapping the other ones to traditional theravada stages being more difficult. There is a number of entries in the index under bhumi as well.

find a lama ? would be my advice, anyway

It seems that one can enter the Bodhisattva way more easily than trying to attain the bhumis. Too much can be made of attaining, while not enough of serving others. I find the Dalai Lama's Book THE OPEN HEART to be a wonderful introduction to the Bodhisattva way. It is a book not only of words but pointing to action to free all sentient beings.
If you want more info on bhumis you will find it in this article that even describes the bhumis as "hyperbolic". Perhaps that is a hint that we should stick more to basics and keep things simple. The Buddha gave us an example of a simple life. Some of those that followed tried to make it more complicated than it was. Remember the Flower Sermon. The Buddha holds up a flower and smiles. That is the whole sermon.
https://plus.google.com/+DenisWallez/posts/e4ungo3s4Fj

The bodhisattva  path (with its descriptions of bhumis  so hyperbolic
  that they always amount to "there's work to do" no matter your
  attainments, even if you're an arhat! gplus.wallez.name/2Q5j3jM1oGC)
  is bringing back ethics into a practical approach:  you're not
  perfect, there's work to do, what matters is how hard you try and
  cultivate qualities…
Life is dukkha  (1st noble truth), this is true even for ethical
  people (monastic or lay): failures will arise. What matters is to
  continue cultivating! The Mahayana approach sets extremely ambitious
  goals (when described with the bhumis)  and doesn't consider small
  failures as easily acceptable (a small moral failure might cancel eons
  of merit!), but it doesn't forget that even if the human birth is the
  most promising for Awakening, we cannot reasonably expect humans not
  to make mistakes! This is not about 'forgiving' lightly; instead, this
  is about accepting that amends (i.e. continued cultivation) are more
  important than snap judgements. If you did wrong, don't ignore it,
  what do you  plan to do to fix the situation, how do you take
  responsibility for it? This is, of course, perfectly aligned with the
  focus on emptiness, and on compassion as the root-quality giving rise
  to bodhicitta.

My favorite Sermon. There are flowers everywhere I look.

Short answer: you make a vow to become enlightened.
Long answer:
I presume you are referring to the 10 Bhumis, as described in the Daśabhūmika, which is also the 26th Chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra, which you can get on Amazon in ebook format, also bootleg versions exist in PDF format on the internet.
The Dasabhumika is interesting in the Avatamsaka Sutra because it has a lot of actionable advice-- much of the rest of the Avatamsaka Sutra has good stuff, but it isn't specific advice about what to do.
The titles of the Bhumis, I find generally perplexing, I think they were intended to describe the consequences of achieving the Bhumi, not thing you do to achieve the Bhumi. The first is "Extreme Joy".
Like everything in the Avatamaska Sutra, the First Bhumi has 10 parts, and I paraphrase:

Vow to make offerings to all Buddhas.
Vow to maintain the teachings of all Buddhas
Vow to go to all worlds where Buddhas appear
Vow to teach (many aspects of Buddhism)
Vow to develop all beings (towards enlightenment)
Vow to comprehend directly all the worlds
Vow to show all beings the pure lands (I think, the phrasing isn't clear)
Vow to develop a number of talents of use in bringing other to enlightenment
Vow to be a diligent teacher
Vow to attain enlightenment

The sutra mentions many other common Buddhist themes for this Bhumi, such as achieving realizations about charity, desire, compassion, sunyata, etc.
I can't find the quote, but I've seen the 1st Bhumi as equated to Bodhicitta-- developing the enthusiasm and will (or vow) to become enlightened. Since the 1st Bhumi is being described as a series of vows, I guess that makes sense.
And for extra credit, the 2nd Bhumi mentions the 10 precepts. The 4th Bhumi mentions the 8 fold path. The 5th Bhumi mentions Bodhisattvas should learn and apply math, science, medicine, the arts, civil engineering and so on to be of use to all creatures. It's these pieces of this-worldly, highly actionable advice that make me like this chapter of the Avatamsaka.
When reading on the internet the various summations of the Bhumis, keep in mind that each Bhumi is described over several pages of text that defy quick summation.
Here is an outline of the Avatamasaka in general.

so it seems i need more merit for this ... seems like the best answer.

Interesting comment. I guess it does involve finding confidence that you can do it, or faith that the system might work.

yes  i was reading words of perfect teacher again.. it seems to help ..

It sounds like the idea might be: "The road is very, very long, so don't rest on your laurels or think that you have arrived."

I don’t know if this will help, but I’ll give a little thought.  Entering any Bhumi requires a shock.  The first Bhumi may be entered when you finally give up and look directly at what is in front of you.  That means for a second or more, halting the constant flow of ideas and emotions - and opening your heart to what seems like outside you.  Awe is a terrific tool. So is total empathy. It’s a shock because life generally doesn’t demand that level of open, but it’s really familiar once done.  Your despair is actually a very good tool, too. Maybe you will get so fed up that you actually throw in the towel.  Then you can see what is left. I don’t think the opportunity is infrequent at all.  Be ready to be curious once done.  Most people don’t notice it and go right back into ideas and emotions.  I hope this helps.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the Salam texts are texts that describe grounds and path. This chart is very useful.
You also find explanations of grounds and paths scattered between Lam Rim texts, Lojong texts (such as Shantideva's Bodhisattvacharyavatara, Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi, etc) as well as in Tenet texts and Abhidharma texts.
To put things simply:

The generation of effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana, the small path of accumulation.
The first union of calm abiding and special insight conceptually realizing emptiness is the first level of the path of preparation.
The first wisdom directly realizing emptiness [in the continuum of a bodhisattva] is the entry to the Mahayana Path of seeing, and it is also the entry to the first bhumi. The first bhumi includes: (1) an uninterrupted path, a wisdom directly realizing emptiness and acting as an antidote (2) a path of release, a true cessation, (3) a subsequent attainment cultivating the perfection of generosity, and (4) the uninterrupted path prior the path of release that will be the entry to the 2nd bhumi.

So, to answer your question: one needs to cultivate the union of calm abiding and special insight on emptiness (the wisdom side) conjointly to bodhicitta (part of the method side). The first time a bodhisattva realizes emptiness directly, he enters the 1st bhumi.

perfect answer, better than I could ever explain

Can I recommend the book Record of an Awakening by David Smith. It is a detailed and compelling account of David Smith's spiritual journey from been a gardener in London to his awakening in Sri Lanka. He writes about his experiences in the context of the bhumis from the 1st through to the 7th and gives a very good account of the experience.
According to David Smith on the way to the 1st bhumi there is equanimity

Slowly the mind understands the true nature of itself and is no long
  deceived and driven by the nature of the self

then after two weeks of equanimity the consciousness 'winks out' for a moment

there was a sudden heightened awareness about a few thoughts [...] and
  suddenly consciousness in its entirety vanished [briefly]

then

the tap root of ignorance [...] is broken. [...] Ignorance can appear
  to recover. But even if it takes a few lifetimes it will inevitably
  cease.

It is a very personal account and the experiences where mapped onto the bhumis afterwards so one could quibble with the interpretation - I'm certainly no expert.  However it's a short book and well worth your time and a quick read of it may illuminate and help with the 1st bhumi.

ya great thanks for the replies... im just gonna sit zazen now..

Well it looks like after reading some stuff its probably not gonna happen.

@ChrisDennisDionisiosStefani Apologies if you read this book and found it discouraging. It is (meant to be) the memoirs of a spiritual journey - and because a gardener from East London achieved it it points to the fact that it is possible for anyone to achieve it. If you read other stuff it seems as if it is for Bodhaisattvas after many eons - at least it only took this man a few years. Good luck though - don't be discouraged or feel disempowered by this. The Bodhisattva way can be very vast and cosmic - too vast perhaps

ohh sorry to appear to be so desponded.  I was reading some accounts of 1st level Bhumis and how it takes eons of good merit and lifetimes to accomplish entering the 11 Bhumis at all... so it may happen but probably not in this lifetime !

"Do you know how old I will be by the time I learn to play the piano!?" "The same age as if you don't."

The first Bhumi is the first step towards enlightenment, an initial awakening. There is actually something you can do in order to make this happen. It has to do with investigating your perception of the self. The are many ways to do this but the most explicit and easiest to grasp I find to be a two-part formula where you alternate between very egocentric view of yourself compared to a more relaxed way of being that does not involve fixating on your thoughts/desires/fears/etc. You can find the instuctions here: http://www.en.openheart.fi/113
Take a look at what Jetsumna Tenzin Palmo has to say about the method: http://openheartopenheart.blogspot.fi/2017/08/tenzin-palmo-pema-rinpoche-on.html
Once you get this initial spark (awakening/1st Bhumi), it becomes so much more easier to work on the Boddhisatva path as you are not se easily derailed by your own emotions and interpretations.

I believe that you are asking the first step to be a bodhisattva. It is a very strong beleif and promise that a person keep in his mind for very long period of time. In many lifes they sacrifice the nibbana as they neef to be budhdha and help numerous beings to get rid of sansara. It is very norbal wish one can have.
When this person passing many lives with having this wish the first step they come to the being bodisatta is getting a confirmation from a Budhdha. This is called Niyatha Vivarana. From then onwards that norble person called as a bodhisattva.


text:
Where did the Buddha say that the minor rules for monks could be ignored?
In his lecture course Sacred Texts of the World, Grant Hardy said that the Buddha had instructed that the minor rules for monks could be ignored. However the Buddha didn't say which rules he considered minor so when the Vinaya was being compiled all the rules were included just to be sure.
I find this intriguing. Does anyone know where the Buddha said this - is there a reference in the Pali Canon or elsewhere about this. I believe this happened near to the Buddha's death so it could be one of the sutras about his paranirvana.
Also, within the Vinaya or commentaries is there any indications about which rules are considered minor or of lesser importance that the others. Did any of the Buddha's intention in this matter make it into the texts - assuming that Grant Hardy is accurate in this issue.

The sutta is DN 16, where the Buddha is giving his last instructions. He gives four injunctions in total:

Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.

"And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend,' let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir' or 'your reverence.'

"If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules.

"Ananda, when I am gone, let the higher penalty be imposed upon the bhikkhu Channa.""But what, Lord, is the higher penalty?""The bhikkhu Channa, Ananda, may say what he will, but the bhikkhus should neither converse with him, nor exhort him, nor admonish him."

(source)

It's an interesting allowance, given what he says earlier in the same sutta:

"The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they ... appoint no new rules, and do not abolish the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training (Vinaya) laid down;

The vinaya (Culavagga) gives an account of the sangha's decision in regards to this allowance:

Then the venerable Ânanda spake thus to the Thera Bhikkhus: 'The Blessed One, Sirs, at the time of his passing away, spake thus to me "When I am gone, Ânanda, let the Samgha, if it should so wish, revoke all the lesser and minor precepts."'
'Did you then, venerable Ânanda, ask the Blessed One which were the lesser and minor precepts?'
'No, Sirs.'
Some Theras then said that all the rules save the four Pârâgikas; others that all save those and the thirteen Samghâdisesas; others that all save those and the two Aniyatas; others that all save those and the thirty Nissaggiyas; others that all save those and the ninety-two Pâkittiyas; others that all save those and the four Pâtidesaniyas were lesser and minor precepts.
Then the venerable Mahâ Kassapa laid a resolution before the Samgha: 'Let the venerable Samgha hear me. There are certain of our precepts which relate to matters in which the laity are concerned. Now the laity know of us that "such and such things are proper for you Samanas who are Sakyaputtiyas, and such and such things are not." If we were to revoke the lesser and minor precepts, it will be said to us: "A set of precepts was laid down for his disciples by the Samana Gotama to endure until the smoke should rise from his funeral pyre. So long as their teacher remained with these men, so long did they train themselves in the precepts. Since their teacher has passed away from them, no longer do they now train themselves in the precepts.'
'If the time seems meet to the Samgha, not ordaining what has not been ordained, and not revoking what has been ordained, let it take upon itself and ever direct itself in the precepts according as they have been laid down. This is the resolution.
'Let the venerable Samgha hear me. [These things being so] the Samgha takes upon itself the precepts according as they have been laid down. Whosoever of the venerable ones approves thereof, let him keep silence. Whosoever approves not thereof, let him speak. The Samgha has taken upon itself the precepts according as they were laid down. Therefore does it keep silence. Thus do I understand.'
(source)

It is considered meaningful what language the Buddha used to give his allowance ("If it is desired"). The commentary to DN 16, picking up on this, explains the whole issue as a means of showing Maha-Kassapa's strength in leading the sangha to the right decision. The sub-commentary elaborates, explaining it as a means of showing that the sangha followed the Buddha's rules because they wanted to, not because they were forced to.
The commentary also comments on the issue of Nagasena's decisive answer (in the Milindapanha) in regards to what really constitutes "lesser and minor rules" (according to him it was the dukkata and dubhasita offences). It explains that some say Maha-Kassapa didn't know, and that was the reason why he decided they should keep them all. The commentary says this view should not be entertained; that Nagasena gave a decisive answer because he didn't want do give opportunity for debate, whereas Maha-Kassapa simply didn't want to abolish the lesser and minor rules (khuddānukhuddakāpattiṃ na samūhanissāmi).
Either way, the decision reached by the first council with Maha-Kassapa as its head is to be considered authoritative, until and unless someone decides to revoke that sangha-kamma.

I think you meant "Ânanda ", not "Nagasena".

@ChrisW No, Nagasena, in the Milindapanha.

Thank you yes, now I found it: page 89 - 90 of this pdf.

Would I be correct in assuming that Buddha believed that if one were to follow the major rules in the proper spirit that the minor rules would be be followed without effort? Therefore having the minor rules would be useless?

Ven. Ananda missed to ask the Buddha of what should be regarded as minor rules, and on that account, not clear on it, good monks follow all rules with care till today. The rest is drifting off.

Near Parinibbana

After I am gone, the sangha — if it wants — may abolish the lesser & minor training rules

See: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html
There is a confusion about that is minor or not as no body asked the Buddha for clarification on which rules are the minor rules hence it was decided to keep all the rules.
Also see: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/148.htm

This is my 400th answer!!! :-) But out of 1,361 question (29% answered) on the site :-(

Although the Teacher before his Parinibbana spoke thus: "After my
  passing Ananda, let the Sangha if it so desires abolish the lesser and
  minor rules of training," no Sangha anywhere actually ventured to do
  this, partly because of the uncertainty in defining "the lesser and
  minor rules" and partly because they were constrained out of respect
  to preserve that which had been instituted by the great Teacher.
  Acariya Nagasena explains that "the Tathagata spoke thus testing the
  bhikkhus: 'Will my disciples on being left by me adhere to the
  passing, or will they repudiate them?'" (Milinda Pañha text, PTS p.
  143). There is also the consideration that those of other sects might
  say, "While the Teacher (Gotama) was alive, his disciples respected
  and honored his precepts but now that he is no more, they throw off
  the training." But principally the reason was devotion arising from
  the successful practice of Dhamma Vinaya.
  (source)

In the first Buddhist council, it was agreed by all the 500 Arahaths headed by venerable Maha Kassapa to preserve all the vinaya rules. The Theravada tradition has been following this ruling ever since.


text:
In Vipassana meditation - How long does one keep watching an object?
When doing vipassana meditation and when one is observing an object - for how long does one keep observing and noting the object?
I have been wondering about this for a while now since i do not know what the "correct" approach is if such an approach exist. I have once read that one should keep observing the object until it ceases to exist in order to clearly see the dissolution-step of the process that all objects follow -> Arising, Presence, Dissolution. Thereby one will be able to see the impermanent nature of phenomena.
Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Lanka

(This depends on the teacher or lineage.)
Generally if you stay too long on a object the following can happen:

get attached to it or obsessed with the object. Say you have a pain in your stomach then you will think this might be food poisoning. Also why is it lasting so long? It is supposed to be impermanent but why is it lingering. Likewise all kind of thoughts will keep arising due to the object.
you can miss out on other experiences in other areas. Main thing is that you should be able to see all experiences through out the body. Staying in one object means that you miss many more subtle experiences. Say your stomach hurts but there is a itching on the head. If you stay with the pain you miss the itching.

So best is to systematically change the objects (emphasis on systematic and methodically here so you don't miss watching experiences even on a small part of your body,  i.e., you have to make every inch of your body sensitive to sense the subtlest of contact / sensation, e.g. the air touching your skin in absence of any other sensations. To see things as they are you have to horn your recognising or conscious part of your mind /  aggregates to register the subtlest of realities) so you experience everything on your body at most waiting on one object for for only a few minutes or so. If you are aware of the breathing, then you can see effects on it. In my case I stay on the breath only for few breaths. (No counting the breaths.)
Likewise if there are any parts of your body which is not sensitive enough to register any input / sensation (there is an object as your facilities are in contact with something or the other by your consciousness is not strong enough to recognize it), you have to wait on that place for a short time to see if you sense something.
You have to be equanimous in facing the sensations. In the absence of craving and clinging, your perception / mental reaction towards such experiences will become weaker and weaker. Also your stop putting fuel to the fire by creating new fabrications which will create further sensual experiences in the future.
As you do this you will start seeing things dissappear faster and faster until it disappears instantly once your attention comes to the object.
Any object, arises and passes away with such rapid succession. When you are sensitive to recognise it when your attention is brought to the object itself then you will see it happening. Otherwise by staying with the object your mind can get a bit concerned and then you will start seeing the arising and passing. (Keeping in mind the above arguments. ) In the latter case if the object is something like pain sometimes it may pass away before you can get concentrated enough to see the phenomena arising and passing. (At a grosser level this is arising and passing away also. ) Any case don't get excited or disappointed.

Let Atma ask Lanka. What would you observe if the object has been disappeared? It quite good to stay as long as it still exists with it, since one could maybe not look proper.
Just stay with it, the answer will come after simply looking for your self. No need to speculate.


text:
What is the difference between Anapanasati and Vipassana?
Both Anapanasati and Vipassana are described as the direct path to Nibbana. What are the main differences along these paths?
Does one fully include the other, or do they diverge from each other, or they in a sense parallel to each?

This question is a duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3547/what-exactly-differentiates-vipassana-from-samatha-meditation

@ruben2020 not quite. The question you point is asking about differences between samatha and vipassana. Anapanasati describes, primarily, a sati practice (as per it's very title). It just happens that parts of it are used to teach samatha.

@ThiagoSilva Thank you for correcting me. Mindfulness of breathing can be used for both Samatha and Vipassana, in different ways. Is that what you're telling me?

Yeah. Like Kayagatasati sutta details mindfulness of the body practice, and the presence of jhana series further suggests that it may be applied as a samatha practice. Also, this dhammawheel thread has some discussion over this topic.

For the benefit of new users, I give below the two Sutta for comparison.
In my opinion, they both lead to Nibbana. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html

You may refer to Upanisa sutta, especially the beginning, to understand their relationship.

Anapana is Vipassana Meditation also.
It has 16 stages. In sets of 4 (tetrads) they cover the 4 Satipatthana.
If I am to reinterpret the question above as "What is the difference between Anapansati and Satipatthana" as I feel this might be what you meant.
Satipatthana shares as section on Anapana. They come up to "Sabbakayapatisamvedi" - you are sensitive to your whole body; "Passambhayam kayasamkharam" - calming the body fabrication.
(Disclaimer: this might be interpreted differently by different linages / teachers.)
In Anapana you more on to feelings which has arisen (when you have calmed your bodily fabrications and you are sensitive on your whole body generally it is pleasant)
In Satipatthana stay with the body, looking at it in more detail and remedying general miss perceptions about it if you have such polarity. When you are doing this you are looking at the feeling outline of the body as initially developed you sensitivity so you can feel the full outline of the body.
Though at the very high level the flow of both methods are the same. Body <=> feeling (**) <=> mind <=> dhamma.

Also any Buddhist Meditation you start off with you have to come to the junction of Sabbakayapatisamvedi and as you progress it will not be limited to the Satipatthana you started off with. In Anapana you start off with the breath but all 4 Satipatthana develops in the process. All 4 has to develop as the Satipatthana correspond to the aggregates. Also any impact on one aggregate effects the others. Hence something you observe in one foundation of mindfullness will impact the other.

Thanks @Suminda. In Anapansati is insight developed at the stage when we observe the mind, or is it more cyclical?

It is from the start it self. Depending on your state there will be effects on the breath. This is also an insight. Main juncture is when you are fully aware of the whole body.

Insight follows. In my personal opinion, getting there itself the rest follows as long as you make a effort and keep practicing. (If you skip practice you fall back. )

That's a great point - whichever path one chooses, if the practice is diligent then insight will follow. Thanks :-)

This is just my lay opinion, different people make progress more quickly in one or the other.  I struggled with Satipatthana meditations for quite some time, recently I switched to Anapana and am finally making some great strides.  It's difficult when you don't have a teacher.

Anapana is a pali term, the in-&-out breaths are spoken of in that way. As to Kayagatasati, mindfulness of the body is spoken of in that way. Anapana are bodily fabrications, the breathing is a thing tied to the body. When one anapanasati one is doing kayagatasati, one classification is included in the other classification.
The difference is that Anapanasati is particularly effective at cutting off distracting thoughts and the breaths are wind element whereas the bodily sensations are generally earth element.
Vipassana as it is taught by ie Yuttadhamma Bhikkhu, is in short, a bit of both.

I have not yet read the Pali suttas refer to "vipassana" alone as the direct path to Nibbana. At least SN 43.2 says:

Katamo ca, bhikkhave, asaṅkhatagāmimaggo?
And what is the path that leads to the unconditioned?
Samatho ca vipassanā ca
Tranquility and insight

The term "anapanasati" is used in a very specific manner in the Pali suttas to refer to a combined fruition over 16 stages of concentration, tranquility & insight; where tranquility has increasing significance the earlier the stage and where vipassana has increasing significance the later the stage. Refer to MN 118 for a complete explanation.
The term "vipassana" ("insight") appears used in a very broad manner in the Pali suttas. Therefore "vipassana" appears to not refer to any specific or exact practice or experience; apart from being wisdom development in general. It appears the term "vipassana" can be used:

In very lofty ways, such as in MN 149 or synonymously in AN 11.2, to refer to direct non-thinking insight that occurs naturally & automatically (without an act of will) from concentration. Contemporary teachers, such as Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, have emphasized this lofty meaning of "vipassana" when they said: "vipassana cannot be taught".

In more shallow ways, such as in AN 10.60, where thinking or reflecting (paṭisañcikkhati) about impermanence (aniccasaññā), not-self (anattasaññā), etc, is used prior to direct seeing (ānupassī) of impermanence, not-self, etc. This type of vipassana (that Bhikkhu Buddhadasa called "suitable for people at a fairly undeveloped stage") is taught by contemporary teachers such as Mahasi Sayadaw and Western monk Yuttadhammo, where practitioners recite mantras such as "rising, falling, rising, falling..." etc.

Because the 2nd type of "vipassana" above continues to use thinking (paṭisañcikkhati), it may not or cannot reach serenity/samatha, such as literally described in AN 4.94, which says there are practitioners developed in vipassana but not serenity (samatha). The strong impression is AN 4.94 is not referring to a high level of vipassana because a high level of vipassana would end the asava (outflows) and fetters (as described in SN 22.59).
MN 19 clearly says even when paṭisañcikkhati is wholesome, the mind is far from concentration and, to reach concentration & serenity, the mind must be made quiet & still.
Also, this 2nd type of "vipassana" (such as "aniccasaññā") appears clearly included in many suttas, such as MN 62, MN 118 & AN 10.60, as a preliminary practise to Anapanasati. In other words, Anapanasati, incuding its 13th stage called "aniccānupassī", appears to be a superior or more lofty development than aniccasaññā (because, as said, aniccasaññā uses paṭisañcikkhati).
In summary, Anapanasati is the orthodox fruition of the Noble Eightfold Path, where mindfulness of right view maturing in letting go (vossagga) automatically results in knowing of breathing and the concurrent development of insight (vipassana) & tranquility (samatha).
Steps 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Anapanasati are vipassana.
Steps 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 and possibly also 15 of Anapanasati are samatha.

Anapanasati is a method of meditation that uses the focus on breathing as a tool to connect and reconcile different layers of psyche: mental, emotional, and somatic.
Vipassana usually refers to a style of meditation that puts particular emphasis on registering subjective phenomena as they arise, morph, and eventually pass away - cultivating and refining one's ability to notice arising and passing away of even the faintest and/or shortest subjective experiences and states, without getting carried away by them.
Anapanasati includes an element of vipassana, discovering things that go on in one's mental continuum, but it also assigns equal importance to cultivation of calm, non-scattered, and emotionally positive state of it mind.
Vipassana, on the other hand, insists that all attempts at manipulating and conditioning one's state of mind are counterproductive and instead claims that the very act of watching one's phenomenological continuum provides all the necessary material one may need to attain The Goal.
In practice, the two meditation styles start from two different points and get progressively closer as one's practice matures, becoming essentially the same practice at the advanced stages.
I don't think either one can lead to Nirvana by itself, in fact you have to absorb a lot of other teachings by Buddha and Buddha's students to know what it is that you're doing.

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