text:
What makes "Dhamma" worthy of worship?
We as Buddhists consider "Dhamma / Dharma" to be holy.But do we know the reasons that make it holy?

Bodhidharma is the legendary founder of Zen in China. He is said to have arrived in China about 520 CE. (Buddhism had by then been known in China for about 400 years.) He was soon summoned to the emperor, who had questions for him.
"I have endowed hundreds of temples and monasteries, and endorsed the ordination of thousands of monks and nuns; what is my merit?" -- the emperor asked.
Bodhidharma, usually depicted as a scowling, hooded, bearded figure, shot back: "There is no merit."
"What then is the main principle of the Holy Teaching?" the emperor asked.
"Open, empty, nothing holy!" (廓然無聖) replied Bodhidharma.

Thank you Andrei, These are Theravada teachings i posted them to open it up to the wider audience.These are the characteristics of dhamma which makes it worthy of worship

In India there are many practices aimed towards liberation from the satisfactoriness of Dhamma. Hence the Buddha used this model where the Dhamma is revered and forms a "religion" like institution around it.
In addition, if the teaching is not revered people will not learn it and practice it. Also it will not attract others. It is very rarely you get to know that the reality is in the form of a teaching hence you should have respect to the teaching.
Hence the reverence to the Dhamma.
Also the Buddha has asked to treat the Teaching like a Boat to get to the other shore and not carry it with you.

Lord Buddha advised a form of meditation and worshiping that focus on the holiness of Dhamma / Dharma.  It is called "Dhamma Anussathii".These are the reasons that makes Dhamma / Dharma holy.

Dhamma Anussathii
Swakkhatha - Lord Buddha taught Buddhism inn the best way/ in the best manner                      possible
Dhamma/Teachings of Lord Buddha has been presented by Lord Buddha in the best manner possible and therefore can't be explained in any better way above lord Buddha's teachings.
Sandhittika - Dhamma/Dharma can be realized in this life itself
Dhamma is not incapable,anyone can understand and realize it in this life and therefore there is no need to postpone the path.
Akalika - Dhamma/Dharma can be understood and realized in any time.  In present and in future.Just like how the great ones did in the past.
Dhamma/Dharma is timeless,  so there is no need to modify,upgrade or modernize it.Just like the past it is still equally effective today and in future.
Ehipassika - Dhamma/Dharma has no secrets or hidden paths/teachings,  Therefore anyone can be invited in to come and see for themselves.
Dhamma/Dharma itself is fully open and contains no hidden paths or teachings.As Dhamma/Dharma contains no secret there is nothing to mask or hide.So anyone can enter and learn or inspect Dhamma/Dharma.
Opanaika - Dhamma/Dharma can only be understood from the inside,by yourself.Thw ewalization can't be given,one must find it within.
No one can give you the realization or nirvana you must find it yourself.
Pachchaththan wedithabbo vinyohithi - Dhamma/Dharma must be understood by wise ones in their own capacity or potential
Only the wise will understand Dhamma/Dharma in their own capacity.The ones who are not wise may not.

Usually spelled Anusatthi

Chris i understand there can be some spelling mistakes,as my pali is not that good can you be kind to correct those? @ChrisW

@Theravada if you post a question and don't get a good answer for several days, and then go and do your own research - in this case it is Okay to post answer to your own question. But when you "ask" question with the purpose to immediately post an answer, then this site becomes a Blog or Wikipedia instead of a Q&A site. For example, I too have a lot of information that I want to share, but I patiently wait until someone asks a question and then I answer. What do you think about this self-restriction, is it useful to keep this as Q&A site or should this be a regular forum?

Your advises are allays good, I was thinking about something and i acted out without consulting elder users because i thought it wouldn't matter because sharing dhamma is a good thing to do.What is your opinion about it? When i was new to dhamma i tried very hard to find good sources and translations,new users join everyday wouldn't it be nice if we can help them.I mean after all this site is like an endless river of good karma for a wise one.I translated a lot of suttas yesterday to share with our community.That's advice we get in our temples,to share what we learn with friends. @AndreiVolkov

@AndreiVolkov I am new to Buddhism SE and i understand that elder users like you value this community so much. I am only trying to be some help to someone new to the path.Because places like this are rare,i just want to give some proper understanding about Dhamma to newcomers because i remember the struggle i had.I will post the translations i have done and if there is anything wrong delete it. I am cross promoting   our community in "Reddit" these days and hope it will bring new audience.Please look at my attempt with kindness.I just want bring some good translations of Theravada here.

Some other sites have Blogs. Perhaps we can start one where users can contribute posts to it.

E.g. http://stackexchange.com/blogs

Both Christianity and Islam seams to have blogs.


text:
Strong blood flow when meditating
I am currently following a vipassana retreat at Panditarama Lumbini (where you are asked to notice the rise and fallings of the abdomen). The first 5 days were OK (even if I maybe was pushing too much with crossing the legs, hurting for one hour periods) but I have a problem since two days ago (even if I stooped pushing hard crossing my legs): When I sit down for meditation, my blood flow increases so that I can feel it everywhere on my body including head and abdomen, to the point that I feel both the breath and the blood flow when putting the hand over my abdomen. Also, I started salivating a lot (only when I sit down for meditation). Also after only one or two minutes of starting the meditation, my breathing speeds up (instead of speed down as usual).
I have had this problem already for two days now. What can be the real problem and how to solve it?
Shall I stop the retreat?
(I feel that stopping now the retreat without having experienced a nice insight would be a bad idea because I probably wouldn't retry the retreat never again)

According to my teacher, increased salivation is a good sign. This means your mindfulness of body and of feelings is recovering.
Increased sensation of blood flow is alright as long as it does not cause a headache. A headache would mean you are trying too hard and fighting with yourself. If that were the case then you would want to either chill down a little or take a break.
Breathing speed up soon after sitting means you're no longer blocking it. Allow yourself to make a lot of noise, don't try to be quiet or calm down too soon. Let your breathing by very noisy until it calms down by itself.
Overall it sounds like you are making good progress, just keep going, don't fight yourself and go with your intuition. If I were you I would not stop the retreat now. Just don't generate expectation to get some external insight. The insight is the elephant in the room you can access through being aware of all experiences, esp. ones that you habitually push outside your attention.
While abdomen is the anchor that keeps you from flying away, it does not mean you should block other inner experiences.

Thx for the answer. So should I keep swallowing the saliva often (which breaks concentration), or should I keep it in my mouth as long as I can?

I don't have headache, but feeling both blood flow and breathing on the abdomen at the same time, I cannot make sense of the pattern and it is very disturbing focusing on it. Then is it ok to focus on something else? The breathing on the nostrils maybe?

The traditional advice is to raise the tongue slightly to have saliva flow naturally down the throat. Instead, I simply allow the swallowing to happen on auto-pilot. No need to control everything.

No, I strongly suggest to keep the main focus on the abdomen. If you don't have a headache nor abnormally rapid heart rate (like you're running fast) then you don't need to worry about it. On the contrary, I would try to go inside the sensation and see what's hiding in there ;)

It worked out this morning! During a 45min meditation, my breathing pattern changed ~5 times, fast or slow, a bit caloric or regular. I feel more motivated now, thanks a lot.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the best way to forget bad choices in the past?
We all have done bad karma,so if something is bugging my mind constantly
(Like killing some mosquito)
what is the solution for me,what can i do to overcome it/or to forget it?

Short answer is, you should not forget bad choices. You should learn from bad choices.
Long answer:

Kukucca is characterized by regret. It's function is to grieve about what has or what has not been done. It manifests as remorse. It should be regarded as
  slavery.

--from Visuddhimagga XIV, 174

The Dalai Lama was working with an American psychiatrist who was interviewing him for a book on happiness. The subject of remorse was broached: His Holiness explained that one time an elderly Buddhist man came to see him to ask for instructions on how to do a very difficult Yoga pose. The Dalai Lama told the man that he was too old and should not attempt the pose as it would be too dangerous. The old man thanked the Dalai Lama, went home and killed himself so he could be reincarnated as a younger, healthier man who could attempt the pose. After hearing the news, the Dalai lama was overcome with guilt at being the reason for another man’s death.
“So how did you deal with that?” asked the interviewer. “How did you get rid of the remorse.”
The Dalai Lama sat there in silence for a minute or two, thinking hard about the question.
“I didn’t get rid of it” the Dalai Lama explained. “It’s still with me every day. I just continue to live with my heart open.”

-- from http://toryshulman.com/how-to-live-with-remorse-efficiently
So, what does it mean, "to live with one's heart open"? It means to see it like so: "What was done in the past cannot be changed. Thinking about it will not help me undo it. Now I have learned my lesson and will not make exactly the same mistake. I don't know what will happen in the future, but if similar situation comes up, or even a completely different situation -- I will do my best!"

If you remember something, note it as remembering, remembering, remembering... until it stops. If you remember something and have already become upset or sad, note it as sad, sad sad... until the sadness goes away. Simply observe the 3 characteristics of regret.

You have a mental reaction (remorse) which leads to more though proliferation (Papancha). So what ever through that comes be equanimous.
If you have equanimity this becomes a Rootless Conciousness while if you do react or have reaction then this becomes otherwise creating future Fabrications.

Forgetting our past karma is not skillful, but if the memory of a past deed is amplified to the point of being unhealthy, you may want to write down the deed on a piece of paper. For example, you can write, "I took a parking spot from an old lady three years ago today." Then leave the paper on a coffee table or desk for a couple of days where you will see it several times in your day. This way, you may be able to see the deed in a neutral context. Originally, my sister suggested this method for getting rid of a song that repeated in my mind.

The best way to overcome this is to work with the object and learn about it.
In Buddhism we overcome "problems" by learning about them and thereby understanding them.
Remorse is one of the 5 hindrances. They are objects that can slow one down on the path. They block progress in e.g. meditation.
When a hindrance is present, make a mental note that a hindrance is present.
Keep observing the hindrance with mindfulness, in the present moment and note it as "remorse, remorse", until it ceases.
This way you can use the hindrance to cultivate insights, i.e. the 3 signs of existence.

The best way is to accept them. Accept them and let them go.
Don't force them to go away, know them and they will go home on their own accord.
And you are not really forgetting anything, you are just accepting things that arise. Because they arise in the moment, they belong to the moment.
I wholeheartedly recommend reading "The Teachings of Ajahn Chah" as you will find great Dhamma talks there.

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


text:
Why is there Hindu gods in this decorated wall in the Vihara of Bhaja
I am a student of art and I am studying on Buddhist art .In the Vihara of Bhaja  there is a decorated wall with two important gods of Hindusim, namely Surya and Indra. It refers to the Shunga period.

Why they have used images from Hindu gods?
Why would they have made this kind of art at all?

I thought that Buddha was against Hindu gods, and that people should follow him because Buddha advised that people should rely on themselves and not on the gods!

How do you know it's Indra? Maybe it's Sakka riding the Eravana...

The question is that how have made this kind of art ? in fact, Buddha was against Hindu gods and people should follow from him because Buddha advised that the man should rely on himself not the gods!

The book referenced in footnote #13 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaja_Caves claims it's Indra.

@AndriyVolkov that's just a rip-off of Indra Eravana and Iravat and Sakka is like Sakra another name for Indra. Just, because the language is different ie Dhamma versus Dhrama doesn't mean there is clear syncretism. Obviously Buddhist and Hindu dharma is different and separate, but this is a clearly example of syncretism.

From Wikipedia, Buddhism and Hinduism:

Hinduism and Buddhism, have common origins in the Ganges culture of northern India during the so-called "second urbanisation" around 500 BCE. They have shared parallel beliefs that have existed side by side, but also pronounced differences.

The Bhaja Caves date to around 200 BCE, so at the time of the relief carvings, Buddhism would only have been around for roughly 300 years. At this point Buddhism would have been considered fairly "young", and would have lacked as much of the independent symbolism, art, etc. that we see today (after the passage of ~2,200 years).
Within the first 300 years of Buddhism, mainstream society in India would still have been very much Hindu-oriented. Hinduism would have been everywhere, reflected in all aspects of daily life. So it follows that artists would have used familiar symbolism and artistic subjects, taken from the Hindu-driven mainstream culture.
This is, of course, as good a guess as any. We'll never know that specific artist's personal motivations or the circumstances that led to the choice of those particular carvings. But looking back on the period holistically, I don't think it's too surprising that we'd see a lot of Hindu art everywhere, even in and around "Buddhist sites".

i think your answer is not correct because in this time there wasnot iconography in Hinddu culture. thanks

Buddhists & Jains share a lot of common mythology and philosophy with what is today called Hinduism. The devtas(gods) have always existed in all these traditions before they were carved into rocks & walls. Just because they might have been carved at a later stage doesn't mean they didn't exist before

As to Buddhism there is a kind of beings who are much like Gods that you mention they were given the name "Deva".
As to Lord Buddha there are 2 Devas with the power and authority over moon and the sun.
The one with power and authority over sun is called - Soorya/Surya divya putta.
If you are referring to the One upon the elephant please know that "Indra" is not the only one on a elephant.There is another called "Sumana saman" (Praised to this day in Sri Lanka) who met lord Buddha personally and made a temple himself.
And you have got one this wrong.Lord Buddha was not against all gods! Lord Buddha was against the belief that a being created the world/universe.So Lord Buddha was only against "Creationism & its Gods and Almighty".
I like to remind you that many of the suttas (Teachings) in Buddhism begins with a mentioning of a god who visited Lord Buddha and asked the question which resulted the teaching.
And i would like to point out that god called "Vishnu" who is very famous in India is a name found in Theravada Buddhism.As to Buddhism these are somewhat alien beings to earth who accepted certain beliefs and resided in certain areas of the earth.Buddha even said it directly and went on to mention their society,planet,body structure and so on.Lord Buddha even visited them in their own planet.And they used to visit Lord Buddha every morning.
I do not know your religion so if i offended something you believe i am sorry.But for us Buddhists all the Hindu gods are either fake or beings from another planet.
The picture of your's does not contain any solid evidence to back up the theory that it is actually "Indra",as to my knowledge an elephant is a sort of a highly regarded animal in Buddhism and that person on top of the elephant could be anyone from a Kind to a Deva or Sakra (the king of Devas)


text:
Is there a name for being totally dependent?
During the last days I experienced that I felt total dependent. I was walking from A to B and there was no choice for me to make, neither to stop nor anything else. In fact, I felt like a robot...
Is there a name for this kind of total dependance?

I think the closest real "thing" in Buddhism that touches on what you've described is thina-middha, or "sloth and torpor" (one of the Five Hindrances). It's characterized in part by a lack of energy (which can be mental in addition to physical). This isn't necessarily what you shared, but a lack of mental energy could make one feel as if driven by an external force, bound by choices made elsewhere. Only you could really say for sure if that particular hindrance was at play in how you felt.
There is also the Pāli word upanissayo which is sometimes translated as "destiny", but is closer in meaning to "basis" or "tendency". It's as close as you get to the notion of predestination in Pāli. (Again, not what you described, but a word that somewhat connects to the idea.)

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like. Btw, I think its really good spotted, that this is actually one of the 5 hindrances that are in effect.


text:
What is the difference between "Bhāva" and "Ātman" in Pali
I have read in Buddhist text, Buddhism is about "Bhāva" and not "Ātman".
What is the difference between "Bhāva" and "Ātman"?

I think that the first word you're asking about is probably "Bhava". Do you agree that the second word is "Ātman" (Sanskrit) i.e. "Atta" (Pali)?

Yes you are right, let me correct that.

Both have their places in Buddhist thought/practice.
First, the definitions:

bhāva: condition; nature; becoming
atta (ātman is the Sanskrit form): self; ego; soul

Here are a couple of relevant quotes:

In Buddhist thought, bhāva denotes the continuity of life and death, including reincarnation, and the maturation arising therefrom. (source)

So, bhāva could be described as the "seamlessness of existence".

Although the Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "self" can be found, some Buddhist schools, sutras and tantras present the notion of an atman or permanent "Self", although mostly referring to an Absolute and not to a personal self. (source)

And atta is about the person in the moment; though as mentioned above, it's really more about a higher level conceptual "self".
In Buddhist thought, the opposite of atta (anatta) is a generally more significant concept:

In Buddhism, the term anattā refers to the perception of "not-self", recommended as one of the seven beneficial perceptions, which along with the perception of dukkha and impermanence is also formally classified among the three marks of existence. (source)

I hope this helps!

They are more or less the same. Well, different aspects of the same mistaken view.
Atman (literally "spirit", "breath") refers to the soul (the entity, the identity) that reincarnates and/or the little boss inside our brain who decides what to do.
Modern cognitive science is mostly on board with anatta. There is no soul, there is no single command center in the brain.
Bhava (literally "being", "existence") refers to the deeply ingrained experience of individual existence: "I am this thing here - and that stuff over there is the rest of the world". "I'm in here looking at the world through the holes in the eyes." It is a habit to self-identify with the point of view located inside a living organism. If you are the living organism then obviously when the organism dies you die.
Because the habit of bhava goes very deep, it remains the unspoken assumption behind our lives, regardless of our theoretical understanding of physics and brain. Theoretical understanding is separate, experiential assumption is separate. Maybe if memetics matures one day we will have a better model to supersede bhava. As long as we don't self-identify with the memes...
Anyhow, the reason Buddhism is interested in abandoning Atman/Bhava is not because non-dualism is the panacea (although it does reduce conflicts caused by egoistic behavior and suffering caused by wrong expectations) - but largely because Buddhism is interested in going beyond naive reification of all and any models, including that of non-dualism.

The word 'Bhava' as used in the Paticca Samuppada means Becoming. The Buddha explains that due to Vedana (feelings), one may out of Avijja (ignorance) generate Tanha (craving) which leads to Upadana (clinging) which in turn leads to Bhava.
Now the same Vedana, out of Panna (wisdom), can lead to freedom from Bhava and take one to Nibbana. When the feelings arise, if one watches their impermanence and remains equanimous, one understands that craving for that feeling is futile. This generates wisdom.
Coming to Atman, the Sanskrit word simply means 'self' or 'ego'. The Buddha taught the teaching of Anatta, the Pali for Anatman, which means non-self. It means that there is nothing in this structure of Body-Mind to be called self. Everything is impermanent and hence not suitable to clinging

Atman - View there is a Soul or Entity. Here the belief is there either controllable, non changing entity. (Entity view.)
Bhava - Becoming or creating further existences. This is a process under which your next moment is create through the rolling of the Dependent Origination (DO). This is like a stochastic process. (Process view.)
In simple terms the general tendency is the look at a being as an Entity but actually there is a Process (Bhava) which does not properties you associate with and Entity (Atman).


text:
Is appropriate to mentally talk to myself during meditation?
Let’s suppose the primary object of my meditation is breathing. I usually just notice the exact point where my breath touch my nostrils and in my mind without words I just acknowledge this finding without words.
Now I wonder if, instead of just realizing it, I can also use words and short sentences in my mind like “the air touch there”.
I was reading about a vipassana technique call “noting”. If I understand it correctly when my mind drift to a secondary object I can just mentally talk to myself that I notice it and go back to the primary object.
I am curious if the same could apply to the primary object. I mean if whenever I notice something about the primary object I can tell about it to myself with mental words.

Some people report an absence of verbal thought much of the time, while others have verbal thought almost always. Being able to do both as needed is best, but I have seen nothing to suggest that verbal thought is an aid to meditation, other than the "noting" technique if it helps you. For most people, getting their minds to stop chattering is a huge achievement, and it sounds like you do this naturally. Don't wish to be like people who are struggling.

Vitakka, which Ven. Thannisaro translates to "applied thought", along with Vicara (sustained thought) is a component of first Jhana. Buddha spoke of them in singular item, vitakka-vicara.  Let it go and we will enter second Jhanna.Jhanas

vitakka-vicara is complex term, that's why leave the answer short so you could do further research.   From Rahogata sutta "..When one has attained the first jhāna, speech has ceased. When one has attained the second jhāna, directed thought & evaluation have ceased.."  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html

Thank you for including the associated sutta. I am studying it right now!

you're welcome. , IMO, forth Jhana where "breathing is still" is that you are so focus on a singular point of breathing that the breathing appears to stop.  Just like taking a picture of a moving car.  A snap shot doesn't show movement.

Everything I've heard suggests that this is OK, though it's not ideal. Ideal meditation would be stillness without interruption of thoughts; handling words in the mind requires thought.
I recall an Audio Dharma podcast where it was suggested that if you must do this, try to keep the words as brief as possible "In breath." "Out breath." That sort of thing. :-)


text:
Mettā Stage 4: "Difficult Person"
Thinking about the fourth stage of Mettā meditation practice, which is traditionally said to have you focus on a "difficult person", I wonder:

Does the person have to be someone that you know personally?
Could you, for instance, focus on someone in the media or a celebrity (whom you don't know personally, but believe to be a "difficult person")?
Is it important that you have a personal connection with this person at this stage of practice?

Thanks!

A "difficult person" can be anyone you know or don't know.

For example  a "difficult person" can be someone you do not know personally

example - Hitler,Mussolini

A "difficult person" can be someone you know personally

The girl who broke your heart for the first time
The childhood bully
Boss
The loud neighbor
That guy in your office

A "difficult person" can be someone entirely different
For example it is easy to do Meththa mediation to a deer or a rabbit because they are cute innocent animals.  But have you tried Doing mettha to a snake or a shark?
"One day a monk died  because of a sanke bite and rest of the monks asked Lord Buddha why he died.Lord Buddha said "Even though he did meththa he did not concentrated it to snakes and because of this reason his meththa was incomplete.That is why he was attacked."
You must consider why you have left some out of your meditation and join those animals or people.But this does not mean you should take every creature alone and meditate on them.
May triple gems bless you!
Learn Meththa Meditation completely - Click and learn

It was a very good question,thank you for asking it : ) @newbold


text:
How to understand "Four great elements" in real life objects?
I have some understanding about the "Four great elements"
But i have these questions...
My chair is solid wood, So i understand the "Solidity element (Patavi)" but how do i understand the rest of the elements in it
Expansion
My chair is solid Iron, So i understand the "Solidity element (Patavi)" but how do i understand the rest of the elements in it

My chair is Plastic, So i understand the "Solidity element (Patavi)" but how do i understand the "State of flowing or Fluidity element" in it

When analysing a cup of coffee, a scientist might break it into solid (the cup), liquid (the coffee) and gas (the aroma). According to the Abhidhamma, a cup of coffee consists of rūpa such as hardness, roughness, heaviness, heat, visibility and odour. The Abhidhamma focus is on how the cup of coffee is impacting the senses. The focus of Buddhism is spiritual development and spiritual development involves the mind, so the Abhidhamma approach uses the mind as the starting point. This is why in the example of the cup of coffee, the Abhidhamma focuses on how the object impacts the senses.
The word “element” tells us to focus on the properties rather than the literal meaning of earth, water, fire or air. The Four Great Elements are experiences, Ultimate Realities, not concepts. The ancient Greeks and others used the same four elements to describe the composition of the world, but generally adopted the literal or symbolic meaning rather than Buddhist approach that focuses on properties. Rūpa are not abstract categories; they are the realities that appear in daily life.
Earth-element is the experience of hardness or softness, roughness or smoothness, heaviness or lightness. Here are some exercises to experience Earth-element. Be aware of hardness in the teeth; bite them together and feel how hard they are. Be aware of softness by pressing your tongue against the inside of your lips to feel its softness. Rub your tongue over the edge of your teeth or brush your hand over the skin of your arm and feel roughness. Experience smoothness by wetting your lips and rubbing your tongue over them, from side to side. Place one hand on top of the other in your lap and feel the heaviness of the top hand, or feel the heaviness of the head by bending it forward. Look for lightness by wagging a finger up and down and feeling its lightness. If something floats in the ocean, it is because the Earth-element in the ocean supports it. If a balloon floats, it is because the Earth-element in the air supports it.
Water-element is flowing and cohesion. Flowing and cohesion cannot be experienced, but it can be understood by the mind. To understand flowing, imagine the blood flowing through the blood vessels, the air flowing into the lungs, or heat flowing throughout the body. To understand cohesion, consider how the body is held together by the skin, flesh, and sinews. The blood is held inside by the skin, like water in a balloon. Without cohesion the body would fall into separate pieces. The force of gravity which keeps the body stuck to the earth is also cohesion.
Fire-element is the experience of heat and coldness. It is usually very easy to look for heat throughout the body. Feel the coldness of the breath as it enters the nostrils and then understand it throughout the body. The function of Fire-element is to ripen, mature, age and burn up. The Fire-element also aids in digestion.
Air-element is the experience of supporting and pushing. To experience supporting, relax your back so your body bends forward. Then straighten it and keep it straight. The force that keeps the body straight is supporting. The supporting Air-element ensures that all things maintain their shape and do not collapse. To experience pushing, be aware through the sense of touch of pushing in the centre of the head as you breathe in and out or experience the pushing as the chest expands or as the abdomen moves when breathing. Wherever there is movement, there is pushing. Though the function of Air-element is causing motion, movement is not the alteration between two stages of the same rūpa, but rather as the disappearance of one rūpa and the immediate emergence in its place of another rūpa. For example, in a movie theatre, many static frames are projected onto the screen each second and a sense of movement is created.
All groups of rūpa include the Four Great Elements. In a stone and a snowflake, the Four Great Elements exist in equal proportion, but of varying intensity. The intensity and the Mental Factor of Attention determine which experience body-consciousness recognizes first. For example, when you put your hand in water, the softness felt is Earth-element, the coolness felt is Fire-element and the pressure felt is Air-element. If the water is cold, then the Fire-element may be experienced first. If there is attention being paid to the sensation of pressure, then Air-element may be experienced first.

Thank you RobM, can you explain the rest of my question, (When i see a solid metal chair i can see Pañhavi but i can't see the rest so does it mean a solid metal chair is only made of Pañhavi ?)

As mentioned in my final paragraph, your experience of Earth-element was the result of both the relative intensity of that particular rūpa and the mental factor of attention. If the chair were very hot or if you were to direct your attention to the temperature of the chair, then you would experience Fire-element rather than Earth-element. The chair consists of eight rūpa (the Four Great Elements, odour, taste, visible-form and nutritive essence), but only one rūpa is sensed at a time.

The Manual of Abhidhamma says,

With His supernormal knowledge the Buddha analysed
  this so-called paramàõu and declared that it consists
  of paramatthas—ultimate entities which cannot further be
  subdivided.
The paramatthas are pañhavi, àpo, tejo, and vàyo. One
  must not understand that these elements are earth, water,
  fire and air as some Greek thinkers believed in the past.
Pañhavi means the element of extension, the substratum
  of matter. Without it objects cannot occupy space. The
  qualities of hardness and softness which are purely relative
  are two conditions of this particular element. It may be
  stated that this element is present in earth, water, fire and
  air. For instance, the water above is supported by water
  below. It is this element of extension in conjunction with the
  element of motion that produces the upward pressure. Heat
  or cold is the tejo element, while fluidity is the àpo element.
âpo is the element of cohesion. Unlike pañhavi it is
  intangible. It is this element that makes scattered particles
  of matter cohere and gives rise to the idea of ‘body’. When
  solid bodies are melted this element becomes more prominent
  in the resulting fluid. This element is found even in
  minute particles when solid bodies are reduced to powder.
  The element of extension and cohesion are so closely interrelated
  that when cohesion ceases extension disappears.
Tejo is the element of heat. Cold is also a form of tejo.
  Both heat and cold are included in tejo because they possess
  the power of maturing bodies. Tejo, in other words, is
  the vitalizing energy. Preservation and decay are also due
  to this element. Unlike the other three essentials of matter,
  this element has the power to regenerate matter by itself.
Inseparably connected with heat is vàyo, the element
  of motion. Movements are caused by this element. Motion
  is regarded as the force or the generator of heat. “Motion
  and heat in the material realm correspond respectively to
  consciousness and Kamma in the mental.”
These four elements coexist and are inseparable, but
  one may preponderate over another as, for instance,
  pañhavi in earth, àpo in water, tejo in fire, and vàyo in air.
They are also called Mahàbhåtas or Great Essentials
  because they are invariably found in all material substances
  ranging from the infinitesimally small cell to the
  most massive object.

According to this, both hardness and softness are conditions of Pañhavi. The main property of Pañhavi is "extension" i.e. the fact that it occupies space.
I guess that âpo is similar, i.e. that if pañhavi means that something can't be compressed (i.e. made to occupy a smaller space than it currently does), âpo means that it can't be pulled apart.
I don't know how to understand vàyo in an inanimate chair; in the body there's vàyo in breathing.

This answer seems to slightly contradict the other two answers:

Suminda's answer says that "vibration" is fire whereas I think this says that vibration is vàyo
RobM's answers says that support is air whereas I think this says that support is pañhavi.

Although you tagged this question abhidhamma the elements are also described in the suttas, in:

MN 28
MN 62
MN 140

I think it would be a good idea to read the suttas because they provide context.

Thank you Chris, can you explain the rest of my question, (When i see a solid metal chair i can see  Pañhavi but i can't see the rest so does it mean a solid metal chair is only made of Pañhavi ?)   @ChrisW

This should be understood in the level of what is felt or experienced. Generally what you experience is element that dominates.
Elementary / Gross View

Earth - this is solidity, attractive forces, has fixed shape and space. When you bring you attention to your teeth the have a certain feel to it. Also the surface you site on has a texture you feel.
Water - this is attractive forces, binding, cohesion, mixing, flowing. If you bring your attention to you flesh it is what bonds you body. It holds it together. Also your saliva flows in the cavity of the mouth. The wood of the chair is help together but this you cannot feel butt you can perceive as the chair does not fall apart.
Fire - the heat or temperature, energy. Say you are famished then you are weak hence lacking vitality or heat element. In the case of a chair which was out in the sun you feel the heat.
Air - repulsive, expansion. Your breathing gives the sense of the Air element. If the chair is cushioned then there is some feel of cushion getting compressed in areas and expanding around you when you sink in.

Subtle View

Earth - when you experience painful sensation when it starts it starts small and thousands of other small sensation cluster together to give your the pain. (Gross solidified sensations.)
Water - sometimes you have itching and sensation like insects scrolling in your body. The sensation is running around off flowing. In some cases there are very pleasant sensations which soak your body like water being pored on your head of water absorbed by a blotting paper.
Fire - heat and cold you feel. Vibration in you body.
Air - pulsation and expansion and contraction you feel.

Thank you Suminda, can you explain the rest of my question, (When i see a solid metal chair i can see Pañhavi but i can't see the rest so does it mean a solid metal chair is only made of Pañhavi ?)

This is already in the answer. Cohesion is the chair does not disintegrate. The surface of the chair may have some temperature (hot, cold, same). If it is a cushion chair expansion and contraction of the material.

Water element is not always flowing. It is flowing, something that mixes (solubility), attractive forces, etc.


text:
Who were the first followers of the Buddha?
I've read that the Buddha's mother Maya became the first Buddhist. Who were the first followers of the Buddha other than his mother?

A Sketch of the Buddha's Life quotes
MN 26,
which includes the following passage:

He wonders: To whom should I teach this Dhamma first?
Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'They were very helpful to me, the group of five monks who attended to me when I was resolute in exertion. What if I were to teach them the Dhamma first?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Where are the group of five monks staying now?' And with the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human, I saw that they were staying near Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana.

Later, that same MN 26 describes his meeting them and talking with those five, and eventually says,

"And so I was able to convince them. I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round. Then I would teach three monks while two went for alms, and we six lived off what the two brought back from their alms round. Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject themselves to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, they reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in them: 'Unprovoked is our release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

SN 56.11 starts with,

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks

SN 56.11 is the story of his giving his first sermon, and it is to that same group of five ascetics (and who were subsequently enlightened when he gave his second sermon, at the end of SN 22.59).
The end of SN 56.11 mentions the name of one of these five, i.e. "Kondañña" (further references here and here).
Wikipedia (which is referencing Encyclopaedia of Buddhism by the Government of Ceylon, pp. 696–698) gives the names of the other four:

Koṇḍañña, along with Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama and Assaji, variously described as four of the other scholars who had read Siddhartha's future or the sons of those scholars, followed him into the ascetic life, with the approval of Suddhodana, who was worried about Siddhartha's safety. They were known as "the group of five" or "the group of five fortunate ones".

See also this question which has several useful answers about the chronological sequence of suttas.

Thanks this is helpful. There were no names mentioned in these suttas of the initial monks?

Can you see that there are hyperlinks (to the suttas) in the answer? The colors aren't very distinct but the hyperlinks are slightly bluer than the rest of the text which is black/grey. The last paragraph of SN 56.11 mentions a name, Kondañña.

Thanks. I do see the link. Though I expected to see the names in the answer and not in reference material.

@Bharat Thank you. I edited the answer to add names of the five.


text:
Is Anatman the most important concept in Buddhism?
Buddhism begins with The Truth of Suffering. That seems like the best point to get someone's attention, and is basically indisputable. The Truth of Impermanence is fairly easy to accept, because we see things change, and everyone dies. But the Truth of Not-Self - no separate, permanent self - is the major departure from Hinduism, and all other religions, as best I know. Realization of this truth amounts to nonduality.
If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching? With the large number of Self-Inquiry groups and websites devoted to nonduality and the many interviews and books about it available, it seems like a more direct path to realization, and more accessible than Buddhism (in its many forms). Is it?
EDIT: I seem to be drawing fire for my phrase "the whole teaching". OK, disregard that but the point is: if you "get" Anatman, doesn't everything else have to fall in to place over time? With that one realization, you can realize everything, and without it, you will never make it all the way. Is that not so?

This is apparently something of a "vexing question." I guess it was pointless.

700 views, ten low-voted answers. There's glory for you!

Did you get an answer that you can use? If not, maybe you could elaborate a bit on your question, so that you can get an answer that will answer your question more in depth.

@Lanka Thank you for asking. I guess no one actually agrees with me. Also, each answer is apparently quite different. I have to go with Deborah Westmoreland when she said, "There are no other people." For put them side by side / The one the other will include / With ease and you beside. And I say that Anatman is deeper than the 3, For hold them, blue to blue / The one the other would absorb / As sponges, buckets do. This is what I find when I look in someone's eyes. It goes beyond wisdom, compassion, or desire. But then, I am a Hetaira Archetype person, so I would say that.

Ok, good. Remember that it dosent matter if anyone agrees with you or not. That is not the point. Practice insight meditation and you will get your answer. As long as one has not gotten insights/experiental knowledge by oneself, its just blind belief, to believe what others say. Go and practice so you can get the insights for yourself.

"Also, each answer is apparently quite different" Aren't they apparently all the same, i.e. all saying, "No, there is no single/one most important concept"? And I think many also say that Anatman is important, but is not the final goal. For example if Anatman says, "there is no permanent 'person'", and if I loved/were attached to someone then the Anatman doctrine might cause me grief (that the subject and object of love aren't permanent) ... i.e. the Anatman doctrine isn't by itself sufficient to be an antidote to grief.

@ChrisW My thought process is perhaps not so organized as those who tend to write on this site, so it helps me to have a single "Organizing Impulse". That is probably why I felt the need to post this question. I am trying to see a beacon in all of this learning so I know which direction to go. For me, permanence is not the point of Anatman - non-separation is. My way of relating to people is like the (probably fake) saying: "See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?" When I cease to make the distinction, so much opens up. How can I grieve for "no one / everyone"?

A canonical description of Anatta is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta which includes the famous summary, "not mine, not me, not myself". You say that for you the point of Anatman is non-separation; I see the point of it as disassociation, e.g. "this grief is not me, is not mine", and of non-attachment. And yes, "see yourself in others" might be (a related and/or a slightly different but also very important) Buddhist concept too, a basis for harmlessness, loving-kindness, and compassion.

@ChrisW So, as I read that passage, when the "I me mine self" diminishes and stops crowding out everything else, then there is room for everything in being. It is no longer constrained. I don't have to hold on to any of it or be responsible for it, so I am free. Being free, I can extend freedom to others. Any fundamental understanding has to wrap around and encompass its opposite and all points of view, or it is not fundamental. Any fundamental will do. Like a Basis in Geometry, or Keys in music. Everything is included. You can't just do the clearing out part, you must let everything in, also.

selflessness is not a concept.  selflessness is like pointing your finger at the moon.  the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. - big B

@sova OK, the Title uses the word concept, but everywhere else I call it a Realization. Does this suffice? I just wonder what happens if the moon points back... Uh Oh.

@nocomprende selflessness is one of the three marks of existence, or one of the three marks of phenomena exhibiting the characteristic of existing.  It's a mark like white and black stripes on a zebra are a mark.  There is no zebra apart from the stripes.

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

It's certainly a great step forward on the path, but it is not the whole teaching.
This is the whole teaching.
That was a joke! But seriously, there is no truly objective answer to your question. Anattā is just one slice of one of the many pies of Buddhism. As a "mark of existence" it holds equal importance alongside the other two, dukkhā and aniccā.

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

What about saṃsāra, kamma, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Middle Way, the Four Immeasurables, dependent origination, emptiness, and The Three Jewels? And a bunch of other stuff?
I too crave simplicity in Buddhism, but the more you look around, the deeper and broader the teachings become. There are 43 volumes in the Pāli Canon. The teachings are vast.

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

It could be your whole teaching. Buddhism is a highly individualized practice. Our paths may run parallel, or at times criss-cross, or at other times go in entirely different directions: but in the end, we can all reach our own way to the end of suffering, and each way may be truly unique.

Looking at the chart you linked to, if one abandons Identity-View, that marks Stream Entry, and then it is basically a foregone conclusion that one will go all the way to the end. But without abandoning Identity-View, one cannot really begin, other than by calming the mind. Anatman is a "watershed" change in view, yes?

The chart is really just a visual curiosity -- I don't think it's meant to be viewed as an actual learning tool or a real path. If anything, it serves to illustrate how complex and intertwined the various Buddhist concepts can be.

@nocomprende You picked on identity-view, but don't you think you might just as well say that abandoning "doubt" or abandoning "ritual" marks stream entry?

@ChrisW Identity-View is more equal. Think: what separates humans from everything else in the universe? Self-concept. That one thing is responsible for all of the suffering that we cause. Someone I know is fond of saying things like "You are not your own God", or "He realized he is not his own God." Aside from the theism reference, this statement puts us in the proper relationship to existence. It amounts to Anatman (or nonduality), as best I can tell.

Compassion is reality.  Always and forever.

No, anatta is not the key point of Buddhism, and Buddhism is not nondualism.
That would be too easy ;)
Shunyata, the Mahayana extrapolation of anatta principle, is getting closer.
If I had to pick one point to explain it all, I would say TATHATA.

So, if someone had grasped Tathata but not Anatta, you would say they are farther along? I feel like they are two ways of knowing the very same thing...

Yeah I would say so. They are not the same thing.

@Andrei Volkov - It would be great if you could elaborate on Tathātā.

@Motivated You can find it here.

@Motivated maybe that should be a separate question: "what is Tathata?"

Buddhism has many core principles which work as complete paths.  However, like other projects, it helps to use a variety of techniques to cover all bases.
The unifying principle in Buddhism is letting go of clinging to reduce suffering.  Looking at some core Buddhist principles through this lens, you will see that each address clinging in a different -- yet compatible -- way.

Realizing Emptiness undermines our belief in the ultimate existence of the things we cling to.
Realizing No Self undermines our belief in the one who clings and is a specific instance of emptiness.
Realizing Suffering undermines our desire to cling in the first place by noting the dissatisfaction of all we cling to.
Realizing Impermanence undermines our desire to cling in the first place by noting that what we cling to will change (or vanish) and hence hurt us.

So the question here isn't whether any concept -- including Anatman -- is sufficient in itself.  I believe the answer to that question is yes.  Rather the questions are...

Is your realization of any of the concepts complete enough that you
don't need the others?
Are you facing any particular challenges that may make some concepts
particularly beneficial for you?

If I realize "no self" then there is no root to feed further clinging. The other aspects are just hacking at the branches. I agree that Anatman might well be the hardest concept, but it is the core. Once there, there is nowhere to go anymore.

@nocomprende: do you want to ask a follow up question, "what kind of attachments might one still have after grasping anatta"?

@AndreiVolkov I can't see attachments surviving long in that case. Whatever they are, they will run down, so it is not much of an issue.

Every neuroscientist understands Anatta - do you think they don't have attachments?

"No True Anatman would allow one to go on having attachments!" :-)

@AndreiVolkov It's not about understanding, it's about realizing.  Every physicist understands heat, yet none of them understands heat like a person who had his/her hand burned.  That's what Anatman is; not the understanding of no-self, but the experience of it.  Understanding can only take you so far in Buddhism, which is why practice is required -- to cultivate the experience.

Thanks, @R.Barzell - that's what I was hinting at for no comprende. First, to understand or even accept Anatman is not yet to be free from Bhava and/or Conceit. Second, Atman is not all there is to clinging. There could still be mental hangups about how things are or supposed to be. That's why I'm saying, after Anatta there goes Shunyata, first as intellectual understanding and then as true Tathata.

For the love of God, my Question includes the phrase: "If someone can realize Anatman then..." I was asking about realization all along. If then I am not the self that I thought I was, is it much of a stretch to realize Shunyata (basically, nothing is as it appears) or Tathata (still working on suchness as an idea)? Must it take a long time? But how can it start except with seeing not-self?

Nirvana is the central concept of Buddhism, there 37 factors which cover the teachings leading to Nirvana. When you practice this as get to Nirvana you see the 3 marks of existence of which one is anattā

From the definition page: "Nirvāṇa literally means 'blown out', as in a candle. In the Buddhist context, nirvana refers to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished. In Hindu philosophy, it is the union with Brahman, the divine ground of existence, and the experience of blissful egolessness." Wow, sure sounds like non-self to me. I can't see any meaningful distinction here. You could not attain this without Anatman, and Anatman is a sufficient condition as far as I can tell.

Anatman is any way a reality we do not perceive due to ignorance. When ignorance is removed by practice of the path and developing the path you get Nirvana. Realising Nirvana is the central goal and the teaching that direct you to do this. Understanding Anatman is one.

So, is money more important (goal) or being a good businessperson (means)? I can teach someone the means. I can't teach them the goal, that is inherent. Because I said "most important concept" I guess people could differ on whether the means or the goal is "most important". My Bad.

Means is the 37 factors which get you there or teaching leading to liberation.

Practically speaking, I think the most important concept in Buddhism is that through our own efforts, we are all capable of enlightenment.  Teachings of any sort - be they on non-self, suffering, or impermanence - are ultimately meaningless unless we are capable of direct realization ourselves.  Without that possibility, the entirety of Buddhism is just an empty philosophy (no pun intended!).  Believe it or not, the idea that individual agency could result in liberation was quite scandalous at the time of the Buddha (e.g. the Brahamajala Sutta).  Like most examples of genius, it's something we take for granted now.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that impermanence and suffering are obvious.  They are just a subtle as anatman and, in fact, cannot be understood in full unless the others two marks of existence are also seen directly.  Ultimately what is most important is our potential to make this realization for ourselves.

Yes, Self-Effort is the Buddhist equivalent of the "Good News". Where now to focus that effort, I wonder? What one idea, if I could overturn it, would cause all the other dominoes to fall? Hmm...

I don't think there is one.  Even the Buddha had to realize suffering, impermanence, and non-self jointly.  And enlightenment rarely happens as abruptly and completely as it did for him.  Most people spend years honing their realizations and perfecting their understanding.  That's true in the suttas and in general practice.

When I speak with people about nonduality or related ideas, everyone accepts that things are "not satisfactory" (a translation of Dukkha), and everyone accepts that things are impermanent. They debate over whether "people" have a permanent essence. But every person who is not nondual resists the idea of Anatman. All of them. Universally. This is the door that is locked for them. Open this door and they are free, even if it takes a while to resolve some things. They will not run back in to the burning barn if they realize non-self.

You sure about that?  ;-)  Seriously though, I think it may be a bit mistaken to assume that removing any one obstacle is going to result in enlightenment.  Delusion is network of deep, interlacing roots.  Pulling out even the largest doesn't necessarily destroy the system.

I think a very important concept in Buddhism is the middle way. From the perspective of practice, it refers to the middle path between indulgence and asceticism. From the perspective of philosophy, it refers to the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. This theme keeps reappearing everywhere in Buddhism and seems to be unique to it. This is discussed in this answer.
Anatta is the concept where there is no absolute eternal permanent self, that is behind all phenomena. At the same time, there is a self that is not annihilated completely at death. The self is not standalone and emerges out of the interworking between form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. How the perception of self is formed is covered in dependent origination.
Anicca too has a connection to this middle way. The universe is neither eternal and absolute, nor is it an illusion. It is real, but it is always changing. However, the universe is empty as in devoid of a permanent self.
Another important middle way concept in Buddhism is that the person that is reborn is neither exactly the same nor totally unrelated from the person in the previous life. This is discussed in this answer.
In physics too, similar ideas appear in quantum mechanics, with the wave-particle duality as an example.
In Advaita Vedanta, Atman (the Self) is permanent, standalone and not different from Brahman, the ultimate eternal reality. The Atman is also considered the Eternal Witness, which extends to the idea of Eternal Consciousness, that every being has the same "I" which is the Atman, which is ultimately Brahman. The Self Inquiry method of Sri Ramana Maharshi asks "who am I?" and seeks to lead the spiritual seeker towards Self Realization, that "I" am not this temporary person (the little "I"), but rather the Eternal Consciousness (the big "I"), the Atman, who is Brahman.
This is quite incompatible with Buddhism, because the Buddha refuted not only a permanent self (in this answer), but also the idea of Eternal Consciousness. In this sutta, the Buddha rebuked Sati the monk, for holding the view of Eternal Consciousness (related to Atman), and corrects him by teaching the concept of eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc. According to this, consciousness is not an Eternal Witness, but rather, arises with sensation and perception. According to this sutta, the five aggregates are empty as in, devoid of a self.
Hence Advaita Vedanta is quite different and incompatible with Buddhism. However, according to this question, what is common or similar between the two is the fact that both Nirvana and Brahman are eternal, unborn and undying.

As a mystical person and not really a rational one, I respect the Middle Way. My question was actually an attempt to focus one the core of the teaching: the "middlest" thing in it. I think that the debate over aspects of consciousness etc is not to the point. If we realize that there is no separate, permanent self, everything else opens up. It is the most revolutionary concept possible for human beings.

If or given that Buddhism "begins with The Truth of Suffering", then I'd guess that "cessation" (of suffering, e.g. the Third Noble Truth) might be fairly high on the list of important concepts.

From a Theravada perspective maybe Saṅkhāra is important. Arguments for its being important can be inferred from that Wikipedia article, i.e.:

The Buddha's exclamation about the "housebuilder" when he became enlightened
The Buddha's last words

Anatman might be a special case of Saṅkhāra, i.e. if you understand Saṅkhāra then you understand Anatman (because the conventional "self" is an example of a put-together fabrication).
Understanding Saṅkhāra presumably results in understanding Anicca too.

From a non-Theravada point of view I recommend this answer:

It suggests there isn't a single most important concept (which is important in 'understanding Buddhism'; see also "Buddhism is a highly individualized practice" from newbold's answer; and see also the Buddhist Paths to liberation being plural)
I also like that answer for his description of the Tathagata-Garba.

Alternatively maybe compassion is the most important concept, the 'sine qua non' of Buddhism (i.e. the characteristic without which Buddhism wouldn't exist because the Buddha wouldn't have taught his doctrine), if I'm right in assuming that compassion is what motivates Bodhisattvas.

And of course Bodhi is an important concept, as a goal and as inherent in the name "Buddhism".

The Shankara page refers to "Volitional Formations", which are thoughts that I choose, right? The Housebuilder quote is on that page: Oh housebuilder! You have now been caught! You shall not build a house again. Your rafters have been broken. Your ridgepole demolished. Who would the Housebuilder be, other than the self-concept? If this is what the Buddha exclaimed at the moment of enlightenment, then it was at the event of realizing Anatman. As far as I am concerned, this is complete proof of my assertion. Thank you.

*Volitional Formations* are thoughts that I choose, right? The "formations" include "thoughts", but "things" too are fabricated. And according to this article they are "will" and "conditioned by ignorance" so I guess they're closer to "I want" rather than to "I choose". Per the last paragraph of that article if you have a view of anatta you might still see sankhara "as unstable, conditioned processes rolling on with no one in charge" and eventually (with practice) put an end to them.

Anatta is one of the 3 marks of existence. The others being; anicca and dukkha.
The whole teaching is the "most" important. One cannot just take out a piece of the teaching. It does not work like that.
The Noble Eightfold Path is a complete teaching that needs nothing to be added or removed from it.
Sila, Samadhi, Panna. All groups are needed in order to win Nibbana.

I do mention all 3 Marks in my question. My point was simply: is there a fulcrum concept where if one places the most effort, everything will be accomplished? If one could only state one sentence about The Path, what would it be?

If one could only state one sentence about the Path, my words would be: Practice the technique correctly, practice diligently and with great effort.

The subtlety here is that understanding of this truth is not realization of this truth.  I might have an experience of ego-shattering transcendence and yet, the very (next) moment, act selfishly out of long-worn old habits.  The practice of realization is one of purification and ceasing to establish new roots for future suffering.
In the Zen tradition we often chant/study the Heart sutra, which sums up the fruition of practice as "gate gate paragate parasamgate, bodhi svaha".  Loosely, "gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, awake, so be it."  It's not enough to understand anatta, I must go beyond even understanding not-I and find myself realized in living my life.  I have to go beyond going and find a way to be present by ceasing to imagine that I am (not).  Which is all just a fancy way of saying this is a real practice to be lived and not merely a philosophy to be understood.

In my question I do specifically say realizing the truth of Anatman, not just thinking it. I like your "roots" analogy. There used to be a popular commercial from Round-Up Herbicide that said, "No Root, No Weed, No Problem." so, if the idea of a separate self is the root of the issue, eliminating only that resolves all the problems.

Supposing it's the root problem, the real trouble is that knowing the nature of the root isn't the same as pulling it out.  Buddhism, in practice, is like an exercise program.  If you want to run a marathon, you practice running.  If you want to end suffering, you practice cessation via the eight-fold path.  Different Buddhist traditions have their own takes on this and prescribe their own specific practices, but they're all essentially pointed in the same direction.  The key here is that there is no short-cut; there are not-one not-two ways about it.

There are many paths and many ways to make progress. But what would characterize a Realization, for you? Nirvana is described as "blowing out"... of what? What is blown out? If Nirvana is the goal, then what is the means of that event / attainment?

Those are different questions with their own subtleties worth elaborating on.  You might want to pose them as separate questions (though I suspect both have already been answered here a few times before.)  In short, suffering is extinguished and the means is the eight-fold path, which is rooted primarily in ethics, with study being part of the mechanism for clarifying and motivating the ethical reforms.

In order to understand the underlying cause of ignorance, or the human propensity towards false notions of self, anatman is essentially important. In order to fully fathom interdependency, it is essentially important. When the Buddha did not accept, or rejected, the notion of selfhood, the kind of self that was being rejected was characterized by three features: a self that is unitary, that is permanent, that is independent. And so then the question followed, what is the nature of self ? how can we understand the existence and nature of self ?
In one of the sutras, it states that just as the notion of a horse and carriage and chariot arises  on the basis of the collection and aggregation of its parts,  in the same manner, from the collection of various mental and physical elements, the concept of the person or the individual arises. So although in reality self is a phenomenon that is contingent upon the existence and  reality of the physical and mental aggregates, when we perceive our own self, when the concept, the notion of self arises in us,  in our naïve understanding of our nature, it tends to appear to us as if it is somehow self sufficient, as some kind of self governing reality.
This notion of self as a self sufficient substantial reality is false, and not only is it false, but the grasping at this notion of self is then a form of distortion. In this grasping the self is elevated to an independent and self sufficient status.  Also there is a risk when we focus on, when we reference as reality, the continuity of the self (when I was young, when I was middle aged etc), in that if one focuses too much on the continuity of the self there is the danger of holding on to this notion of a permanent self. In the Buddhist vernacular, this distorted perception is referred to as ignorance... [paraphrased/extracted from a 2009 talk by HH The Dalai Lama]

It is said that wisdom (about emptiness) and compassion are the most important concepts in Buddhism. But then agian, how can concepts be the most important thing in Buddhism?
If one focuses too much on the anatta-side, one risks getting into nihilism. So the emptiness/no-self doctrine is important, but if one does not supplement it with compassin, there is no use.

Thank you. I was reading in another question that part of Emptiness is not-self... So of course it all connects up. I think that nihilism and lack of compassion would have to be a form of self point of view still (what I would call a Neo state). A nondual point of view would be that self and other are one thing, so it is as well to help another as oneself - there is no important distinction. For example when Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself" it probably was supposed to be a description of the point of view ("we are one") rather than a commandment ("do this"). Ignorance is deep.

The most important or the final concept in Buddhism is realizing "Four Noble Truths".
All the other concepts are within it. and should not separately consider.
According to the first sermon "Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta", the base point of understanding is realizing "Anichcha".

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks
  delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given,
  there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye:
  Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.

I did some research and found the following in this document: the Maha-nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse
The Translator's Introduction at the top ends with this paragraph:

In each of these cases, once the sense of attachment and
  identification with name-and-form can be broken, the mutual dependency
  between consciousness and name-and-form is broken as well. This brings
  about total freedom from the limits of "the extent to which there are
  means of designation, expression, and delineation... the extent to
  which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle
  revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e.,
  name-and-form together with consciousness." This is the release at
  which the Buddha's teachings are aimed.

I read this as saying that breaking the identification with name-and-form is sufficient and is the "release at which the Buddha's teachings are aimed", which is what I have been asserting in my question.
This section is from Assumptions of a Self:

"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the
  self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my
  self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not
  sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world.
  Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound
  right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life
  fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

It seems to me that the Buddha was saying that if we stop making assumptions about the self and trying to solidify it through definition, but instead simply accept that something goes on there about which we need not concern ourselves, then "There is nothing further for this world" - that the goal is in hand.
From this I draw the conclusion that realizing Anatman is necessary and sufficient for (eventual) liberation. If so, that is the place to apply effort.

That says that name-and-form depend on consciousness: without consciousness there's no name-and-form. So perhaps consciousness (not name-and-form) is a more important concept than name-and-form? And then according to The Twelve Nidanas, consciousness depends on Saṅkhāra (not mentioned in this sutta). So perhaps Saṅkhāra are the most important concept than consciousness (according to Theravada Buddhism).

@ChrisW Wherever you can apply a lever to move your conscious mind (using your conscious mind), is the place to focus on. Pick the easiest place to begin the inquiry. I do not know if most people would find it easier or harder to question consciousness or Sankhara than Identity-view or name-and-form or whatever. The point is, if you break one of the links of the chain that holds up the false belief of a separate, permanent self, the illusion falls. Any link will do. Bart Marshall says of Self Inquiry, "We are trying to maneuver the mind in to a position where it disappears." Not impossible.

I think that "Anatman" means "not a permanent self" ... there is no permanent self e.g. because everything (including all things all sensory experiences and all ideas) is impermanent. Is that (the same as) what you mean by "non-duality"? Also if you want to read more about the Theravada doctrine about self, I recommend the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

@ChrisW Since Impermanence is already one of the 3 marks of existence, reducing Anatman to no permanent self would be redundant and needless. Nothing is permanent, therefore the self is not permanent by inclusion. I thought that the key point of Anatman is that a separate self does not exist. But as I delve in to the literature... So I cut the Gordian Knot and said, whatever it is, it has to go. We can agree on that much. So what can we accomplish with that in hand? Tell others. This is getting reminiscent of the Arrow Parable. I have never seen so much resistance to a simple idea!

What I mean by nonduality (watching out for Raptor Attack) is that one no longer makes the distinction. it has ceased to matter.

@nocomprende: "Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self." (MN 11) -- "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging, they do not completely describe the full understanding of all kinds of clinging". I'm not referring to your clinging to the view of no-self. I'm saying, the point of Buddhism is no clinging of any kind. Clinging to self is only one case (albeit an important one).

@nocomprende: It's not just about having the right views. The quote is also about completely removing clinging of all kinds. Having conviction of the right views and fulfilling a few other criteria leads to stream entry. But from stream entry to Nirvana, all clinging and all defilements need to be removed. It's not simply the matter of having the correct opinion or correct views.

@ruben2020 I did say Realize in my question, not just have the correct opinion. As soon as one realizes Anatman, then other sorts of formations and clinging must begin to fall away. The other Realizations don't necessarily have that effect. Anatman points your compass in the right direction, as it were.


text:
Who am 'I'? Verification as to the demarcations of 'Sankhara'
It maybe a very confusing question. But I have been contemplating this quite a lot recently.
Ven. Ajahn Chah preached, as the Lord Buddha once said :

One who sees Sankhara and is purged of attachment has happiness. Mind is Sankhara. Body is Sankhara. Sankhara is not us or ours. Thus those who see Sankhara are at peace. They see the mind and body not as 'self' but only as 'Sankhara'. (pg.22, paragraph 3)
   - Excerpt from 'Being Dharma' By Ven.Ajahn Chah

When I contemplate these deep words, I feel that 'Sankhara' means 'things that are conditioned, impermanent, ever changing and not reliable sources of happiness'.
Wikipedia defines 'Sankhara' as follows:

Saṅkhāra (Pali; Sanskrit saṃskāra) is a term figuring prominently in Buddhism. The word means 'that which has been put together' and 'that which puts together'.
  In the first (passive) sense, saṅkhāra refers to conditioned phenomena generally but specifically to all mental "dispositions".[1] These are called 'volitional formations' both because they are formed as a result of volition and because they are causes for the arising of future volitional actions.[2] English translations for saṅkhāra in the first sense of the word include 'conditioned things,'[3] 'determinations,'[4] 'fabrications'[5] and 'formations' (or, particularly when referring to mental processes, 'volitional formations').[6]
  In the second (active) sense of the word, saṅkhāra refers to that faculty of the mind/brain apparatus (sankhara-khandha) that puts together those formations.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra

But when we think even deeper, if both mind and body are 'sankhara', then who is the 'being' within our minds, who travels through this eternity of existence? This 'being' that some refer simply (and quite wrongly) as an 'Āthma' or in other ways as 'existence'? If 'Āthma' or 'existence' is Sankhara, then how does it endlessly exist? Sure it changes from one existence to another, but it is endlessly existing , which contradicts the nature of 'Sankhara' itself, making 'our existence' immortal.
It is like a man travelling from house to house. The house breaks down, but the man is eternally travelling. Who is this man, and how is he eternally travelling, is he is also 'Sankhara'? Shouldn't he also end at some point or the other? In this analogy, the man is the 'existence', and the house symbolizes our body and mind.
I know this is very confusing material, but I consider this site a realm filled with knowledgeable beings. I would find myself very happy to find any number of meaningful replies.
Thankyou!!!

The words "endless", "immortal" and "eternal" do not appear in the web page about Sankhara that you cited. So, you brought those ideas in to your concept. They are yours, not Sankhara's.

who is the 'being' within our minds, who travels through this eternity
  of existence?

'being' is simply a label given to nama-rupa. There's no being within the mind. It's like asking "what is the car within the car? Is it the engine? Wheels? Frame? Seats?". No such thing! 'Car' is simply a label given to a certain arrangement of all that.

Who travels through this eternity of existence?

Nobody! A being traveling through a Samsara is simply used in the metaphoric sense to give teachings at conceptual level. In reality, it's just Paticcasamuppada.
Sankhara paccaya Vinnana - Dependent on Karma consciousness arises

Sure it changes from one existence to another, but it is endlessly
  existing

What do you mean by 'it' here? Is it Nama, or is it Rupa? A single Rupa unit only lasts for 17 thought moments. The next Rupa arising is not the same as the previous. Nama vanishes even quicker. So what exactly is endlessly existing?
"It existing" here is simply a false view of reality about a Sanna(perception) caused by contact at the sense doors. Ignorance covers up impermanence, so instead of taking Sanna as just Sanna that rises and dies, we take Sanna as something existing.
Remaining questions are based on the above mentioned.

The Nama and Rupa and there behavior is discuss in this answer.
Some times this sankara refer as vinnana.

The demarcation of Sankara is Nirvana which is not conditioned. Everything else is: beings, world, external, objects, etc. which is conditioned.

"Who am "I" Nothing but Five Aggregates arising, ceasing away whilst still changing...  As Ven. Dankande Dhammarathana Thero aptly says in one of  his dhamma books named "Sankhara hara kawara MAMEK da ?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE:) Could you add some references to your answer and a translation of the words ""Sankhars hara kawara MAMEK da ?". That would increase the quality of your answer. Thank you.

The best answer you can get for these questions are in one place.  You should learn "Tipitaka" for the most accurate answer.
This book will help (it is free for download).
Comprehensive-Manual-of-Abhidhamma

But when we think even deeper, if both mind and body are 'sankhara',
  then who is the 'being' within our minds, who travels through this
  eternity of existence?

The pali word 'San' means to 'put/add/collect' 'khara' means 'to do'. However, sankhara do not refer to objects, instead sankhara refers to processes.
In the Culavedalla Sutta, three types of 'sankhara' are, rupa (form related) sankhara, vacci (directing and evaluating thought) sankhara, and mano (perception and feelings ) sankhara. In the same sutta above, the example of the form sankhara is given as the in breath and out breath. Thus sankhara denotes processes, and not objects. Therefore to say that the body and mind are sankhara means that the body and mind are processes. We can take an 'instance of those process states', a snapshot, and refer to them as objects, but the body and mind are constantly and continuously changing.
Now into these processes/sankhara you have introduced a 'being'. In the dhamma, when rupa, vedhana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana (aka the five aggregates) come together that state is called a puggala (a being), but this is a state of flux.

who travels through this eternity of existence?

Now the 'who' is a concept which the dhamma explains is formed by viewing the aggregates either collectively or individually as mine, I, myself. Yet in the absence of these 5, conceptualizing a 'who' is impossible. Thus the concept of the 'who' dependent on 5 changing, inconstant, processes, that arise and pass away. Thus the 'who' too is changing, inconstant, arises and passes away, and a process. Therefore the view, the belief, that there is a permanent, unchanging 'who', an 'I', a 'mine', a 'self' is a false view, a false belief.

It is like a man travelling from house to house. The house breaks
  down, but the man is eternally travelling.

This view is formed, because of the continuous house making process (gaha kharako). If there comes a point, where the house breaks and a new house is not made, what will happen to this man of yours? Your man is defined as someone who lives in a house, but if there is no house, it is not possible to define or even conceptualize your man. Therefore the house making process and your man were one and the same. Without the house the man is not there, and without the man the house does not arise. So as long as there exists the  erroneous view that there is a man separate to the house, the cycle continues.

That's how consciousness is, one by one the consciousness comes and goes  but there is no self or body when you look this closely moment by moment.

It is like a man traveling from house to house. The house breaks down, but the man is eternally traveling. Who is this man, and how is he eternally traveling, is he is also 'Sankhara'? Shouldn't he also end at some point or the other? In this analogy, the man is the 'existence', and the house symbolizes our body and mind.

There is neither man nor no man. There is neither house nor no house.
And what are the man and the house?
Sankhara.
And why is there a man and a house and how is the man building houses and eternally traveling from house to house?
By volitional activities.
And why there are volitional activities?
You make them because of ignorance.
What ignorance?
One or more of the following:

Wrong view that there is 'a being'/'somebody'/'a soul'/'something'/etc. that is endlessly existing, eternally traveling, building houses ...
Wrong view that there is a man.
Wrong view that there is a house.
Wrong view that the man and the house are permanent.
Wrong view that happiness is in the impermanent. In the conditioned. Where Sankhara is.

Like the sun rises and sets over and over again, in the same way the man rises, builds his house, thinking, over and over again: "This time I'll make it last in eternity!"
Then, time passes ... old age comes ... the man dies ... the house crashes ... and the man, because of his past volitional activities, inexperienced, unwise, not knowing, ignorant: "This time I'll make it better!" ... travels in eternity ... searching the permanent in the impermanent ... the unconditioned in the conditioned ... over and over again.
In volitional activities, wanting "This time I'll make it better!", Sankhara arises and its entire mess of suffering.
And what is right view in this case?

There is no 'being'/'somebody'/'a soul'/'something'/etc. that is endlessly existing.
There is neither man nor no man.
There is neither house nor no house.
The man and the house are impermanent.
Happiness is in the permanent. In the unconditioned. Where Sankhara is not.

Like a giant pillar that is unmoved, unshaken, infinitely strong, rooted and eternal, in the same way the man neither rises nor does not rise, stops to build his house, thinking: "".
Then, time does neither pass nor not pass ... old age neither is nor it isn't ... the man neither dies nor not dies .. the house neither crashes nor not crashes ... and the man, because of his past volitional activities, experienced, wise, knowing, enlightened: "" ... is eternity ... neither searching the permanent nor the impermanent ... neither the unconditioned nor the conditioned ...
In the cessation of volitional activities, neither wanting nor not wanting, Sankhara and its entire mess of suffering do not arise.
When ignorance is removed, volitional activities can cease, and that which some teachers refer as The Absolute/God/The Unconditioned/Deathless/etc. is achieved.
The goal was reached. The holy life fulfilled. There's nothing else to be done.


text:
What word is the closest to qualia
I think I get what qualia means, intuitively at least:

Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers
  over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to
  see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I
  am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective
  character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state,
  some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term
  ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively
  accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives.

In Buddhism what is the word for this "introspectively accessible" aspect of "what it is like"?
Is the term just "phenomena" or is there some other more subtle translation, like "awareness"?

I don't think there is any single word that's cleanly equivalent to qualia, but there are some that approach the idea from different angles.

sabhāva-dhamma: Condition of nature; any phenomenon, event, property, or quality as experienced in and of itself.

sabhāva by itself means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It describes the intrinsic nature or essence of living beings.

dhamma: (1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2) mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also, principles of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself.

dhamma by itself can describe a kind of mental quality or quality of thought.

mūla: Literally, "root." The fundamental conditions in the mind that determine the moral quality — skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala) — of one's intentional actions (see kamma). The three unskillful roots are lobha (greed), dosa (aversion), and moha (delusion); the skillful roots are their opposites. See kilesa (defilements).

mūla describes the root of our actions; the quality of our intention behind them.
sabhāva-dhamma and dhamma probably come closest, while mūla carries the same concept but applies it very specifically to the mental root of action.

good answer thanks. does the unconditioned have a quale ?

Good follow-up question. The unconditioned, in Buddhism, is the ultimate reality: nibbana, pure mind, the realization of Buddha-nature, etc. I'd like to imagine that this has a quale (perhaps indescribable), though I wonder if I'll ever get to answer with first-hand experience. :-)

The small "d" dharma, the technical term - is the word you're looking for. This is usually translated as "phenomena" or "objects of mind", but the idea is that these are like elementary atoms the subjective experience is made of. Some modern scholars explain Early Buddhism's theory of dharmas with a metaphor of the movie film - each frame being a dharma.
As any abstraction, the theory of experience made of dharmas can only go this far before it starts leaking, but it certainly is a useful approximation. IMO some folks back in the ancient times got carried away with analysis of dharmas-based experience, hence the Abhidharma. Once you expect dharmas to be well-delineated and precisely identified you start pushing the limits of the abstraction.
Although all dharma-s are "introspectively accessible", for convenience they can be classified in groups: what you see, how you feel, what you cognize, what you remember, etc (precise classification does not matter). The purpose of dharma/skandha theory is to switch one's context to phenomenological mode - at which point you can start mastering the practical side of the teaching, beyond mere intellectual understanding.
Just as Daniel Dennett argues that qualia do not really exist, the Prajna-Paramita movement famously proclaims that all dharmas are "empty" of svabhava (discrete existence).

thanks Andrei, i intend to take up zazen someday soon, hopefully before it's too late ;)

I remember this "intellectual understanding" label bothered me for quite a while. I attributed it to what I thought was my teachers' covert anti-intellectualism. But the point is simply to correlate the teaching with your own experience. You don't have to do formal zazen for that, just pay attention to your day-to-day experiences.


text:
Good works of Buddhist fiction?
Earlier this year I finished the Buddha series by Osamu Tezuka, and really enjoyed it. I liked the blend of historical references with fictional dramatic elements (and the art, of course). I also read and enjoyed Siddhartha in the past.
My question is: Can anyone recommend other similar pieces of Buddhist fiction? Fictional works with Buddhist themes, period fiction with a Buddhist element, or anything similar? (I've been reading so much serious material lately that I'd like to take a break with something a bit more relaxed.)
Thanks in advance!

I hope you don't mind my closing this as a duplicate. If other people have further answers to add, they should add them to that other question (so that all the answers are in one place). Also the two books you mention in this question would be good in answer to that question.

Don't mind at all! I searched before asking but somehow didn't find that one (no idea how I missed it). Thanks!


text:
What makes Lord Buddha worthy of worshiping as to suttas?
I know Lord Buddha is worthy of every respect but what is the correct answer/what has the Lord Buddha himself has said?
What makes a lord Buddha worthy of worship as to lord Buddha are there any reference from suttas that we can find?

In MN 77, the Buddha teaches a group of wanderers the five reasons why His disciples venerate Him and look to him for guidance:
1. Supreme aggregate of virtue
2. Excellent knowledge and vision
3. Supreme aggregate of wisdom
4. Teach the Four Noble Truths
5. Show the way to develop wholesome states.

According to the Dhajagga Sutta:

I also say unto you O monks — if any fear, terror or hair standing on
  end should arise in you when you have gone to the forest or to the
  foot of a tree, or to an empty house (lonely place), then think only
  of me thus:
"'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely
  enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower
  of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men,
  the Buddha, the Blessed One.' Monks, if you think of me, any fear,
  terror, or standing of hair on end, that may arise in you, will pass
  away.

And another translation of the same sutta:

"But I tell you this: If — when you have gone into the wilderness, to
  the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — there should arise
  fear, terror, or horripilation, then on that occasion you should
  recollect me: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly
  self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert
  with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit
  to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.'
  For when you have recollected me, whatever fear, terror, or
  horripilation there is will be abandoned.


text:
What are "Good / Correct things" to a Buddhist to do?
We know there are good and bad things in the world,now that is general knowledge.But our version of right and worlds version of it seems to go against each other,
So my question is what are the actual good things as opposed to worlds view of it?

What do you mean by "our version of right and worlds version of it seems to go against each other"? Can you give an example? Who is "we"?

"We" means Buddhists, "our version of right and worlds version of it seems to go against each other" means the experience you gain when you start the path. (Like the a dying person living off a Life support system. For the world mercy killing is a good choice but we are against it.) @michau

Simply do what is really beneficial you and / or others.

The Noble Eightfold Path tells us the "good" and "correct" things to do, in an overall way.

Right view
Right intention
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration


text:
Help me with a paradox
One Day i was thinking about the "Thrikoti parishuddha sila" (The ultimate version of five precepts)
Let me give an example how this version works....

You can't kill
You can't aid killing
You can't hire to kill
You can't order to kill
You can't admire / promote killing
If you can stop a killing you must stop it

These can be applied to all of the precepts...

So while i was thinking about this and this came into my mind.
If i see an animal getting eaten by another animal what should i do?
If i see a someone having an extramarital affair what should i do?
and so on....
My question is some of these are without doubt only result in a good way but some will give suffering or pain to that person or animal so doesn't that generate bad karma for me??

Answer to this question suggests that eating other animals isn't morally wrong from the Buddhist perspective, and only things that actively promote suffering (e.g. killing them yourself) are wrong.

I am familiar with the term “pārisuddhi-sīla”, but this only relates to monastic practice (restraint according to Vinaya, restraint of senses, purification of livelihood and restraint in use of the four requisites). I have not heard of the "ultimate version of the five precepts"... where are these mentioned?
Your first five bullet points are mentioned in the Atthasālinī under courses of immoral action (also mentioned in the Vinaya), but I have not encountered “If you can stop a killing you must stop it”. Is this from a Mahāyāna text?
Your questions seem to be around this final bullet point.
Please help me to better understand and I may be able to offer an answer.

"Thrikoti parishuddha" is used to describe meat which a monk "has not (a) seen, (b) heard or (c) do not suspect the animal specially killed for his consumption". Perhaps "the ultimate version" of five precepts are the OP's own musings/speculation/extrapolation.


text:
Lord Buddha's First teaching and its meaning?
Can anybody provide a full translation of Lord Buddha's First teaching. I am referring to a Sutta called "Dhamma chakka pawaththana".

Why are you asking this question? There are several English translations of Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta available at accesstoinsight.org.

Apparently he was searching for the terms given in his question 'Dhamma chakka pawaththana' and couldn't locate anything. This has happened to me as well. Since these are long names I think google also struggles if you don't search the correct word.

I get the link to Access to Insight on the first page when I google "Dhamma chakka pawaththana" (without quotes).

No need to be rude,it just came to mind and i thought a good friend would help!  : (  that's it and thanks for the link @michau  : )

Thank you for being reasonable @dmsp , i did not searched for it just asked from this group.

If you know the name of the sutta, and if it's a famous sutta, then I find you can easily find it using Google, for example:

This search (Google)

Wikipedia too has many articles about Buddhism, and one of them describes this sutta:

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Wikipedia)

At the end of the Wikipedia article are "External links" to translations and commentaries and so on:

External links (from Wikipedia)

This Buddhism.SE site's Help page includes a list of "Useful resources", one section of which is "Buddhist Texts", which includes several anthologies of suttas.
Looking in each of the collections mentioned in our list of "Useful resources", I found the following (seven) links to the sutta you asked for:

Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dhamma (SuttaCentral)
Four translations, on Access to Insight:

Translated by Peter Harvey
Translated by Ñanamoli Thera
Translated by Piyadassi Thera
Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Buddha Vacana)
The Discourse on the Turning of the Wheel of Truth (Dharmafarer, PDF)


text:
Is it unethical in the Buddhist view to attend work ill?
You know, and increase risk of others getting the illness and such?

Why would one want to attend work when one is ill? Not only do you increase the risk of possibly making others unwell but also not providing the opportunity for yourself to recover. The sooner you recover, the better you are in fulfilling what you do for work.

@Motivated I don't know why, but people do all the time.

I am aware that people do it all the time and from the conversations i have had it occurs for various reasons. These include demands and expectations of work e.g. we need that report today, the workloads on staff especially when various roles are being fulfilled by one person, policies on sick leave, etc. Most of the time, people who are unwell don't want to be focusing on work but "feel" they need to e.g. how will i be perceived, what if someone else does a better job than me, what if they find out that i am not doing as well as i should be, etc

It doesn't square well against the notion of Right Action (or Right Conduct) on the Noble Eightfold Path.

The practitioner should train oneself to be morally upright in one's activities, not acting in ways that would be corrupt or bring harm to oneself or to others. (source) (emphasis added)

If going to work while ill could cause others to become ill, that would be bringing harm to others. So it's probably not a good idea.


text:
Stages of Life according to Buddhism
Like in Hinduism, is there any teaching on the stages of life in Buddhism ?
P.S. Answers for this question will be great "Dhamma gifts" for my upcoming Birth day.

There really isn't anything quite like ashrama in Buddhism, at least as it applies to an individual person's life. Buddhism takes a simple view that one is born, lives, and then dies, within a cycle of saṃsāra (a belief shared with Hinduism). Within the context of that life, one is either awakened or one isn't.
I think it's interesting, since Buddhism defines many other "stages" involving aspects of life (just not about life itself):

Four stages of enlightenment
Stages along the path to liberation (in Tibetan Buddhism)
Jhāna stages of meditation
Seven stages of purification
Seven stages of mind training (in Tibetan Buddhism)

Also: Happy birthday!

Great answer! Along the same thoughts I had when looking at the question!