Why did Buddha passed away in fourth Jhana? I just wonder why Buddha attain Parinibbana in fourth Jhana.
 Why not first or say second Jhana?

Maha-parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding

Buddha emerged from the 4th jhana and passed away with equanimity; to demonstrate he passed away with an ordinary mind viewing ordinary reality (rather than passing away in an altered state of consciousness). This shows faithful disciples they do not need jhana or any non-ordinary mind to pass away at peace. All that is needed is equanimity & wisdom.

  Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of
  nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the
  dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the
  third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana
  he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from
  the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound. DN 16

However, the Buddha practised the jhanas before his passing to show he had not lost any mental mastery; per MN 12:

  I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, and come to the last stage: my years have turned eighty. Now suppose that I had
  four disciples with a hundred years' lifespan, perfect in mindfulness,
  retentiveness, memory and lucidity of wisdom. Just as a skilled
  archer, trained, practiced and tested, could easily shoot a light
  arrow across the shadow of a palm tree, suppose that they were even to
  that extent perfect in mindfulness, retentiveness, memory and lucidity
  of wisdom. Suppose that they continuously asked me about the four
  foundations of mindfulness and that I answered them when asked and
  that they remembered each answer of mine and never asked a subsidiary
  question or paused except to eat, drink, consume food, taste, urinate,
  defecate and rest in order to remove sleepiness and tiredness. Still
  the Tathagata's exposition of the Dhamma, his explanations of factors
  of the Dhamma, and his replies to questions would not yet come to an
  end, but meanwhile those four disciples of mine with their hundred
  years' lifespan would have died at the end of those hundred years.
  Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there
  will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom. MN 12


Is ignorance/unawareness Dukkha? It is usually said that the root delusions of attachment, anger and unawareness/ignorance are the causes of Dukkha. Of the three, unawareness/ignorance is the root cause.

I see very how unawareness/ignorance can lead to Dukkha. But is there any evidence in the scriptures that unawareness/ignorance itself is Dukkha?

Dukkha has many meanings.  It also means changing, impermanent, subject to destruction, then yes, ignorance is dukkha because it is impermanent.   To put it in perspective, wisdom or Panna is also Dukkha because it is subject to decay and ending.  Wisdom ends when name-form ends.  Ignorance (as well as wisdom) is Pratītyasamutpāna-dhamma (conditoned dhamma).  The things that beings are ignorance of is the four noble truths.  that's why beings are constantly searching for sensual pleasures  (or in finer cases, pleasures from rupa and arupa bliss).  We dont know that things we are searching for are reasons why we suffer.


Buddhist Brahmachariya, Brahmin Brahmachariya, celibacy, chastity Here is my main question #1
What is the difference between sutta defn. of Brahmacariya and 1) brahmin Brahmacariya predating Buddhism and 2) celibacy and chastity?
defn.: celibacy
the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.
What is the difference between celibacy and abstinence? Although many people use “celibacy” and “abstinence” interchangeably, there is a difference between the two terms. Abstinence usually refers to the decision not to have penetrative sex. ... Celibacy is a vow to remain abstinent over an extended period of time.
defn.: chastity
the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or especially from all, sexual intercourse.
What is an example of chastity? The definition of chastity is a quality held by someone pure, modest or celibate. A virgin is an example of chastity. Faithful married couples are examples of chastity. ... The boy's friends laughed at him when he took a chastity pledge and promised to not have sex.
Note that ‘brahmacariya’ goes much farther than ordinary defn. of ‘chastity’ and ‘celibacy’
Here is my main question #2
Not even having a thought of lust is the EBT definition of brahmacariya, avoiding sex and any kind of physical or mental sexual activity. Ordinary defintions of ‘celibacy’ and ‘chastity’ tend to use physical activity to determine status. EBT buddhism focuses on the mental causes that can preempt physical manifestations of lust, kāma . (sutta refs?)
I think there's a sutta (or two) in AN that answers both questions, where the Buddha criticizes Brahmans of his time not living up to brahmacariya.
PED definition:
: Brahmacariya (neuter) [brahma + cariya] a term (not in the strictly Buddhist sense) for observance of vows of holiness, particularly of chastity: good and moral living (brahmaṃ cariyaṃ brahmāṇaṃ vā cariyaṃ = brahmacariyaṃ Pj I 151); especially in Buddhist sense the moral life, holy life, religious life, as way to end suffering, Vin I 12, 19, renouncing the world, study of the Dhamma D I 84, 155; II 106; III 122f., 211; M I 77, 147, 193, 205, 426, 463, 492, 514; II 38; III 36, 116; S I 38, 43, 87, 105, 154, 209; II 24, 29, 120, 219, 278, 284 (°pariyosāna); III 83, 189; IV 51, 104, 110, 126, 136f., 163, 253, V 7f., 15f., 26f., 54f., 233, 262, 272, 352; A I 50, 168, 225; II 26, 44, 185; III 250, 346; IV 311; V 18, 71, 136; Snp 267, 274 (vas-uttama), 566, 655, 1128; Thag 1027, 1079; It 28, 48, 78, 111; Dhp 155, 156, 312; Ja III 396; IV 52; Pv II 913; Dhp-a IV 42 (vasuttamaṃ); Vibh-a 504. — brahmacariyaṃ vussati to live the religious life A I 115 (cf. °ṃ vusitaṃ in formula under Arahant II A); °assa kevalin wholly given up to a good life A I 162; °ṃ santānetuṃ to continue the good life A III 90; Dhp-a I 119; komāra° the religious training of a well-bred youth A III 224; Snp 289.
— abrahmacariya unchastity, an immoral life, sinful living M I 514; D I 4; Snp 396; Pj I 26;

'abrahmacariyā' = no sex, no masturbation, per Vinaya
for a sutta explanation, MN 117 says:

And what is right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the
attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto sāsavo puññabhāgiyo upadhivepakko?
Refraining from killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual
misconduct.
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī, kāmesumicchācārā veramaṇī—
And what is right action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a
factor of the path?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo?
It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence and refraining from the
three kinds of bad bodily conduct in one of noble mind and undefiled
mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anāsavacittassa ariyamaggasamaṅgino
ariyamaggaṃ bhāvayato tīhi kāyaduccaritehi ārati virati paṭivirati
veramaṇī—
MN 117

the three kinds of bad bodily conduct includes any type of bodily conduct that maintains or increases the hindrance of sensual desire, as follows:

And what is the fuel for the five hindrances?
Ko cāhāro pañcannaṃ nīvaraṇānaṃ?
You should say: ‘The three kinds of misconduct.’
‘Tīṇi duccaritānī’tissa vacanīyaṃ.
AN 10.61

sexual thoughts are not included in 'brahmacariyā' because only 'abrahmacariyā' or 'kāyaduccaritehi' are included in the Right Action factor of the Noble Eightfold Path

And what is right action?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto?
Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing and sexual activity.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī,
abrahmacariyā veramaṇī—
This is called right action.
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, sammākammanto.
SN 45.8

sexual thoughts are obviously 'wrong thought' but not 'wrong action', as follows;

And what is wrong resolve? Being resolved on sensuality, on ill will,
on harmfulness. This is wrong resolve.
MN 117

as for Brahmins & sex, the sutta sought is possibly AN 5.192, even though such a sutta is not for Buddhists. This sutta appears to say a brahmin is equal to Brahmā when they go forth from the lay life to homelessness and master the Four Brahma Vihara. If the 4th Brahma Vihara of equanimity is mastered then obviously any type of sexual activity is excluded.


What are the unthinkable (acinteyya) dhamma? I have heard there are 4 unthinkable (acinteyya) concepts in Buddhism. Not Acintya.

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:[5]

  The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha
  develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
  The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
  The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
  Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

Why It says Unthinkable?

The reason is given in the sutta itself. Pondering on these brings madness and frustration for someone with an undeveloped mind.

  "These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html#fnt-1


The relation between the three types of dukkha Dukkha is said to have three types.

Can Vipariṇāma-dukkha be analysed in terms of Dukkha-dukkha alone?
Is the experience of Saṃkhāra-dukkha nothing more than Vipariṇāma-dukkha?

Dukkha-dukkha (the dukkha of painful experiences):

The physical and mental sufferings of birth, aging, illness, dying.
The anxiety or frustration of coming across what is not desirable.

Unwanted things happening. Coming in contact with unwanted things, beings and stimuli. Resulting mainly as the world and even ourselves are not what we expect or in our control and being averse to such experience. This includes our form and cognitive process which is subjected to decay and change to which we are averse.

Viparinama-dukkha (the dukkha of the changing nature of all things):

The anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto what is desirable.
The frustration of not getting what you want.

This is mainly use to change. Wanted things not happening. Not coming in contact with wanted things, beings and stimuli. Or desirable experiences coming to an end (partly in relation to the above as it is undesirable for a desirable experience to end). Resulting mainly, as the world and even ourselves are not what we expect or in our control and being in wanting experiences we do not get. This includes our form and cognitive process which which takes on a particular form but we it to be different.

Sankhara-dukkha (the dukkha of conditioned experience):

A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards

Mainly coming current and past volitional formations and karma. These manifests as sensations. These sensation also change and finite experience in common with the above two.
(Quotes sourced from: Dukkha)

Can Vipariṇāma-dukkha be analysed in terms of Dukkha-dukkha alone?

There is some overlap, i.e., if you are experiencing a something desirable and this changes.

Is the experience of Saṃkhāra-dukkha nothing more than Vipariṇāma-dukkha?

Nature of formations is it change hence some overlap with unsatisfactoriness due to change. Stimulating thoughts, happy moods, positive karmic experience all pass away.


Meditation practise methods/techniques I used to meditate before a few years.During meditation I used to focus my attention by imagining a candle flame in front of the eyes.Now, one of my friends suggested that a better way is to focus on the breath.Should I switch the method? i.e is the second method better than the first one.

There are four main ways to get the citta into samadhi:
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html

THe most famous is the jhana, but today  Puthujjanas prefer to speculate whether there are sounds in the jhana and they talk about access concentration and other concepts they have invented.
Since most puthujjanas cling too much to kama, they do not know what ''being secluded form the senses'' mean, what ''renunciation'' means

The samadhi about light is the least detailed. he says tHis one is the one to get to know karma and rebirth.

THe samadhi form sati sampajanna is the most clear and easiest: clear directions and a puthujjana knows whether the training to get sati sampjana is correct or not.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/08/an08-009.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.035.than.html

THe samadhi about finding out the conditions of dukkha is of course the hardest.

THe buddha first get the citta into samadhi through sati sampjanna where he spend his time discriminating between 'thoughts of ill will and craving for kama'' and ''thoughts of good will and renunciation'', between pleasure of the 5 senses'' and ''pleasure of the citta''.
That leads to samasamadhi, meaning the jhanas, once the citta in samadhi, he ''turned the citta'' to the knowledge of karma and rebirth.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

THen he turned his citta to the ''arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates'', ie yoniso manisakra, meaning the cessation of the asavas.

SO do just like him, discriminate between sensual pleasures and pleasures of seclusion, between thoughts of ill-will and thoughts of good will, and avoid lust for kama and thoughts of ill-will. Once you get good at knowing vedana, sanna and thoughts, and rejecting thoughts of ill will and craving for kama, you will get the samasamadhi and then you can ''turn your citta'' to the samadhis to end dukkha.

you can alternate the training to get the citta into samadhi with various contemplation, typically developing the perception of anatta, anicca, disgust and so on
https://suttacentral.net/an4.169

If you want to do ''breath mediation'', then the task is to calm the 3 sankharas first, then destroy them with perception of anicca and so on
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html

if you struggle already with sati and sampajanna, you must live around good people first, and avoid bad people
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.11.irel.html
so that you will spend most your tie doing good actions https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html


What are "Supernatural mental abilities" in relation to Buddhism? In this question How to help non-Buddhists understand a young person's desire to be ordained as a monk?, one of the "selling points" listed was:

  5) Supernatural mental abilities (astral travel, reading minds, remembering past lives, etc.)

Could someone explain this is more detail? I had thought this was more of a pop culture point rather than what seems to be a core concept.

Do such "abilities" actually exist, and if so what is their implication in the practice of Buddhism or proceeding in one's daily life? Do monks or others actively practice them?

The question is slightly broad and asks about several different facets.  I'm going to focus on "Do monks or others actively practice them?"  The answer to this is "yes, some do."

There are a variety of beliefs and practices in a wide array of different Buddhist traditions which could be considered to be "Supernatural" in some way, shape, or form. They could also be considered wholly "natural" depending on your point of view of the mechanics behind what is happening.

There are practices such as tummo which have received some amount of study that allow for increasing the core body temperature.  This may or may not count as "supernatural" but it would certainly seem that way to an outside observer with no experience in the practice.

There is a belief among some practitioners of certain sects that there is a literal rainbow body phenomena wherein the body releases light and, sometimes, shrinks (my source on this is a conversation with a monk, if someone knows of something written down I'd be interested).  It is believed that this can be attained through the practice of dzogchen.

Information on belief in various forms of an "energy body" or "subtle body" are everywhere in various Buddhist traditions.

There's a practice called dream yoga which includes something that could very well be considered "astral travel," though it is notoriously difficult to take a classification system derived from one system and apply it to another, so whether you count it as "astral," "illusory," or "supernatural" or just something related to what others call that may be tricky. These practices certainly have been used historically for divination (as described by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche), among other purposes.

This isn't even getting into the phenomena of emanations and other such beliefs.

Basically: There are certainly beliefs and practices, engaged in by both monks and non-monks, that can be interpreted this way.


What are the main schools of Tibetan Buddhism? Can anyone provide short (maybe a couple of sentences) summaries of the main schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the differences between them. In fairly certain there are 4 main schools but I could be wrong in that. Also if there are more minor schools of interested then a link to further information on those too would be really good.

I've read a bit about Tibetan Buddhism but the characteristics and differences of the main schools just won't lodge in my mind so this would satisfy bit of personal interest really.

Many thanks for all responses.

Rather simplified, somewhat caricatured presentation based on my own very limited knowledge:

Nyingma - "the old (translation) tradition", based on prehistoric transmissions of B into Tibet as early as 8th century. Characterized by loose "democratic" organization (until the exile each monastery was independent, with no central figurehead a-la Dalai Lama) and by a very abstract main teaching intended to plant the student into an already-enlightened perspective. Historically situated in Eastern Tibet. Before the communist invasion this was a very deep, very conservative school, very proud of its archaic methods.

Kagyu - "the oral linage" from mostly Eastern (with some important monasteries in Central) Tibet, from 12th century. Characterized by emphasis on effort and various transformative / cleansing practices, this school takes pride in live transmission of fundamental sanity and teaching by personal example that is not shy of adapting to the spirit of times.

Sakya - the study school, historically in close affinity with rich secular rulers of Central and Eastern Tibet since 13-14cc. Emphasizes thorough knowledge of Dharma through study of texts. Not always considered a mature monastic tradition by the above two schools.
The head role is passed down the family line, as in hereditary monarchy.

Gelug - the new reform school, founded in Central Tibet in 14th century, on the textual basis of the then extinct Kadam school (11-12cc). The doctrinal foundation of the Central Tibetan government that saw itself in charge of Tibet from 15th to 20th century. Characterized by relatively more rigid orgstructure. Emphasizes logic and study of Madhyamaka. The Gelug is the most recent and perforce drew upon the prior schools (Nyingma/Kagyu/Sakya) in many ways.

Bon - an ancient shamanic tradition germinated by influx of Buddhism, specifically Nyingma teachings. Leads with shamanism as upaya in lower yanas, elevating to sutra-, tantra-, and Dzogchen-level teachings depending on student's capacity.

Ri-me - a universalistic movement in Tibetan Buddhism intended to harmonize the various views and styles of the different traditions while preserving their individual features. Voiced by leading Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya scholars of 19th century, Ri-me re-established the non-sectarian principle that had been always present in Tibetan Buddhism despite the ongoing political struggle between the schools.


Sensual Desire & their gradual cessation We all now that habits which are not acted upon wither with time. However, is it possible to reduce cravings to a point where the specific cravings are close to non-existent?

How does one go about to achieve this?

Let's take sexual desire or sensual desire as an example: If I don't engage in sexual activities then craving will probably reduce in intensity and frequency, but I doubt that external objects have no control in how I process them.

If I see an attractive woman or tasty food isn't it inevitable that I at times will feel strong craving?

My teacher always said, reality is your interpretation, you are in control of your perspective.

Buddha said, you should be in control of your perception enough to be able to see repulsive in the attractive, and attractive in the repulsive. Buddha said, this is done by 1) "fabricating a fabrication" and by 2) "looking with equanimity". Buddha spoke about "proper attention" and "guarding the doors of the senses".

When you see an attractive woman, if you shift your attention and think about unattractive aspects, such as menstrual cycle, bowel movement, skin disease, STD, hysterical scandals, the process of giving birth etc. in connection with her, this is called "fabricating a fabrication".
My teacher said, the reason we like certain people is due to our stereotypes. We have some "types" or generalized images that we are attracted to, and the reason we find them attractive lies deep in our basic emotional experiences. In terms of Buddha-Dharma (and modern semiotics) we like people that have certain "signs" that we recognize because they trigger certain memories.

If you look very carefully at what goes through your mind when you're looking at an attractive (to you!) woman, you should be able to see the memories/stereotypes/prejudices that get triggered. For example, a woman could remind you of your own mother back when she was very young, or maybe her body language and voice look like they promise to soothe and cradle you etc. This is just an example, you should look at your own mind to see how it works.

Once you are able to see your triggers (attachments, stereotypes), you should be able to work with them to let go. Once you let them go, your interpretation of what you're looking at will change, and you will no longer be attracted to those particular signs.

So when you look at the situation scientifically, in terms of psychology, phenomenology, semiotics etc. - this is called "looking with equanimity".

These two techniques are called "controlling your perspective" or "the proper way to apply your attention".

Finally, in Mahayana we recognize that all attraction and repulsion is based on One Fundamental Assumption. It is assumption that "Something Outside of You Can Make You Feel Good". This is called the Root of Ego. Everything you feel, see, and experience - pleasant and unpleasant - comes from your mind. So all these pleasant feelings you think you feel when engaging in sex - they actually come from your own mind. Therefore, it is incorrect to impute (assign, project, attribute) these sensations to an "external object". In fact, external objects are also the constructs of your mind. And your mind is nothing but an ephemeral interplay of natural forces interacting from the beginningless times. So "external" and "internal" (aka object and subject) - are not two separate things. There is no "you" looking at "woman". There is only experience, which is the nature of mind.

Once you understand that there is no "you" watching it, and there is no "woman", - once you clearly see that this is like a dream that's dreaming itself, the attraction will be cut at the root. Then there is no way it can arise anymore.

So yes, craving is not "inevitable", it's absolutely possible to stop it.

It does take some effort to go deep enough in your mind to see the mechanism, but once you see how it works, it can be mastered.


feel 'me' inside what should i do for the next step I have two times experience where first time i am doing my sitting meditation. I was so calm i feel like i was 'trap inside the body(don't know how to explain)' i can feel that i was deep 'inside there'. by that time i cannot feel my breathing or heard any sounds from outside. I can 'feel/see' my body from inside.

second experience- when i was walking home from work. i guess i was too concentrating while walking. Again i can feel i was again 'inside'(different from the first experience) and i can see(not using my eye) it clearly that my 'leg' is moving 'by itself'. My eyes was open when i walk but i feel like i am not seeing 'my leg' using my eyes.It's a bit freak me out but i was very calm at that time.

Anyone out there please kindly help me what should i do when i face this problem again?

Thanks

As your meditation progresses you will feel sensations both inside and outside, which was covered more in detail in an earlier answer. These sensations depend on Fabrications which manifest itself as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. As you meditate you might get blissful feeling. Do not get attached to them or dwell too much on the experience.

Also the breath is bodily fabrication. When you meditate you bodily fabrication will calm down. Your breath will become so subtle that you might not feel it.

Mostly when you see inside your body or this can be just imagination, through if you develop supernormal powers you will be able to do this. In the case you feel inside and outside it is a different case. When this happens you should keep looking until you see arising and passing throughout your body, i.e., you see your whole material body is in a flux of change.

Finally do not dwell too much on meditative experiences because you can get carried away and get attached or perhaps averse to them. You have to keep and unattached and clear mind to see things as they are. I.e., you have to keep your mind equanimity at all times.


Is celibacy intrinsic to Buddhism? I was reading about Buddhism in Wiki and I just am not able to make out if celibacy is a must for Buddhists?

Is celibacy intrinsic to Buddhism?

The answer depends as follows:

As a householder, no, celibacy is not required. It is only required to abstain from improper sexual conduct. And what is improper sexual conduct?

  He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their
  mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their
  relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail
  punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.
  -AN 10.176, To Cunda the Silversmith (Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta)

As a monastic, yes, celibacy is required. You can get a better understanding of monastic celibacy by reading this discourse (AN 7.50, which is at the bottom of the linked page).

This distinction, however, is not "set in stone" or "black & white" since householders are encouraged to be celibate if they feel inclined to do so.


The formless jhanas in this world When a meditator achieves e.g. the 5th jhana of infinite space, is he or she still in this world?

Obviously the body is, but what about the mind?

I ask this question for a broader one: can sentient beings perceive the world of form as something formless? i.e. can we imagine a termination of form as something which can happen to this mind?

When a meditator achieves e.g. the 5th jhana of infinite space, is he
  or she still in this world?

Yes, he doesn't disappear. When you sleep, you are not aware of what's happening around you. But that doesn't mean the world is gone.

  Obviously the body is, but what about the mind?

Yes, the mind is still associated with the body. Just that it's focusing on the space element.

  can sentient beings perceive the world of form as something formless?

Atoms are 99.9999999999999 percent empty space. They say If you remove all the space in the atoms, the entire human race could fit in the volume of a sugar cube. That gives you an idea of how much our senses fool us. It's mostly empty space.


Is Scientific Realism/Materialism and/or Historicity compatible with Mahayana? In my estimation the answer is decidedly no, but I am interested to hear what others think from a Mahayana or Madhyamaka perspective.
First, to try and clarify terms I am using scientific realism/materialism as described here:

Scientific Realism
Scientific Materialism
Historicity

While the above links do a pretty good job of describing these worldviews I don't think they are perfect. In my own imperfect language I'd say these worldviews presuppose an objective world that exists in an independent and inherent manner. I think this is the default worldview of most lowly beings and certainly of western or modern society. The idea is that the practice of science gets us ever closer to the true and fundamental underlying material reality with the presupposition that there is a true and fundamental underlying material reality that exists in the first place.
In this worldview, the laws of physics inherently exist and everything can be reduced to some fundamental building blocks of nature evolving in time according to those laws. That there is a truth of the matter about every historical event that is independent of any subjective consciousness. In short, that things exist inherently and not as mere conventions.
To my mind, anyone who believes in these worldviews has not fully grokked the deep and subtle meaning of Mahayana/Madhyamaka emptiness. To be clear, I am not talking about the practice of science which I see as distinct from the worldviews above.
To define by way of contrast, consider this alternative scientific worldview that does not presuppose an underlying observer independent physical reality. By the way, here is an article written by the author of Relational QM on the comparison of his work to Nagarjuna.
Is this correct? What have I gotten wrong?

What follows is not an "answer", but just some ideas or frames of interpretation from discussions with fellow Buddhists with a Western scientific background. So please don't crucify me :-) but tell me if I'm wrong.
The Scientific Method is Compatible with Mahayana Buddhism
Let's first appreciate the success of the western scientific method to explain certain parts of conventional reality that were previously within the religious domain. There is no need to believe in a god of thunder anymore in order to explain certain meteorological phenomena. I believe that this success was just extrapolated to the metaphysical realm somehow unintentionally or without much thinking, so that "scientific materialism" just formed once there was no need for specific divinities anymore. Scientific models just don't talk about metaphysics (for exceptions see below).
Scientific models used to fail completely to deal with "mind" (as the structure of a perceiving subject), at least until a few years/decades ago. Psychology is either considered "unscientific" (early psychology with Freud, Jung etc.) or doesn't actually talk about the mind anymore (focusing on what is measurable). So I would argue that "science" is actually not talking about the mind or any metaphysical concepts like Karma or Sunyata. So I don't see any hard incompatibility here with early Buddhism. This would also hold for most Buddhists schools, if you'd strip of the mythological elements and/or interpret them as psychological images.
Neuroscience, Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence
A few decades ago things have started to change, and that is where I believe things get interesting with respect to (in-)compatibility with Buddhism. The disciplines start to talk about the mind and the structure of the perceiving subject. However, current models are very basic and typically limited to specific brain functions. For example, there has been quite some progress to model the processing of images from the eyes in the visual cortex, and artificial intelligence (AI) has become successful performing such tasks automatically, as everybody can see first-hand when using the image processing functions of recent mobile phones. We can expect further progress in this area.
The current results imply that "thoughts" and other cognitive states are represented in the brain as patterns of neuronal activity. This is a pure materialist view of the mind. There are philosophical and religious schools that deny this, but given the success record of the scientific method and the amount of resources invested in this research area, I predict important advances in the upcoming years that will make this view more and more popular.
Areas of Conflict
It may be interesting to examine the specific areas or concepts that might conflict with such material view:

Karma: Maybe we could live with "Karma in this one life"? Karma could also be seen as related to neuroplasticity and neural pathways that accumulate/aggregate habitual reactions.
Devas, Nagas and other divinities: I interpret them as personification of states, traits or properties.
Nihilism: Nihilism gets in the way of Sunyata. There is no answer on this one yet.
Mind: See below.
Other areas? Let's discuss.

Materialist View of Mind Preserving Buddhist Properties?
I'm an active researcher in the area of AGI and have published a very technical paper on the subject.
Here is a summary using a simile: The mind relates to the neurons of the brain like a YouTube video on a computer to the silicon logic that only works with 0's and 1's. You can't explain the quality of the video on the level of silicon logic. You will have to talk about applications, libraries, operating systems, programming languages, microprocessors, digital logic and many other "layers" that build on each other in order to produce a video. In a similar way I could imagine that the phenomena of "mind" appear at the highest layer of the "layer cake" of the brain.
Is ... Materialism ... compatible with Mahayana?
To summarize these views: The wealth of mental phenomena in and outside meditation is perfectly compatible with a materialist base of the mind. The physical laws governing the simple neural building blocks don't limit the mind in any way. Nihilism may be a problem. We also may have to "tweak" the interpretation of some concepts in order to avoid conflict. Strict followers of certain Buddhist schools may find this not acceptable.


Do meditative "exercises" and "mental workouts" enhance the ability to reach enlightenment? If i were to practice some serious brain training regimens for a short period to develop my mundane mental faculties into almost super powers...
or even to develop Super mundane powers...

1- Would that enhance my ability to become fully "Enlightened" (not nibanna or arahantship) faster and/or with more ease?

2- Would it help me to help others reach full enlightenment more?

All the abilities you have might work as a tool to benefit others or an obstacle on your way. It really doesn't matter what abilities you have, Buddha gave countless of teachings for people with various capabilities and they all are able to reach enlightenment.

Personally, years ago I developed really good memory. Many people are astonished that I am able to recall details of events that happened years ago or that I remember long sequences of numbers, words etc. Maybe not a super power, but something I gained while deliberately practising some specific cognitive techniques. Does it help in my Buddhist practice? Well, when reading texts I easily remember many details so I need much less time to read and understand some teachings of my masters. But on the other hand, I also remember lots of bad days of my friends. While others already forgot some unpleasant things, I still keep it and my good memory doesn't want to let it go. This is a real obstacle on my way.

If you want to develop great abilities to benefit others, it implicitly means that you feel compassion to other sentient beings. But to benefit others you really don't need super powers, you can simply be kind. Try to smile to strangers, say some nice words to cheer people up, offer some time to your friends so you can listen to them and give some comfort. There is lots of people around us who suffer and very often all they need is someone to offer a little bit of interest and support.

To answer your 2 questions directly:

No, super abilities won't enhance the ability to reach full enlightenment. To be fully enlightened you need to get rid of ego and understand the emptiness of all phenomena. You need to embrace the impermanence of all compounded things - your brain is only a tool you can use and one day it will die. The enlightened mind, on the other hand, is a clear space without the limits. To reach enlightenment you will need to give up your ego and brain. So it really doesn't matter if you have to give up a normal ego or super-mundane ego. In terms of ease and time needed to reach enlightenment - it all depends on how much pride, attachments, compassion etc. you have. So better start with working on that.
Super-mundane abilities are only tools so on their own they won't help you to benefit other beings. Imagine having a knife - you can either cut bread to feed others or you simply can kill them. It all boils down to whether you have more compassion or anger.

If one wants to quickly reach enlightenment there is no point developing super-mundane powers. The fastest way to enlightenment is to use techniques to give up ego and understand emptiness. The fastest way to benefit others is to develop compassion and start with being kind to people around us.


Buddhist Therapists? I'm looking for Buddhist therapists for a friend of mine (who is also a practicing Buddhist). He's been using traditional therapists and it has not worked for him
Is there a list of Buddhist therapists available anywhere online?

For the United States there is a great resource: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/buddhist
For the UK: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/counselling/buddhist
After filtering for location it's possible to add many other filters, for example for types of therapy (CBT, ACT, MBSR, etc)

It's also possible to change the country in the upper right of the page
It seems that in general you first need to filter by area and can then add filters. "Buddhist" is one of the filters which can be found under the "more..." button in the "faith" column

I hope this helps someone!


Reference request: blame as the source of anger? I am looking for a textual reference. I cannot recall the exact details but I will try my best; if anyone knows what I am referring to and can point me to the text, it would be much appreciated.

The basic idea in the passage was roughly, I believe, that if one doesn't have anyone who can tell them what to do or not do...doesn't have a person who can punish them, then they won't become angry. I believe I read this in the Visuddhimagga but I'm not sure. Any help is appreciated!

He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me of my property. Whosoever harbor such thoughts will never be able to still their enmity.
Never indeed is hatred stilled by hatred; it will only be stilled by non-hatred — this is an eternal law.
— Dhp., vv. 4-5

(Source: The Elimination of Anger: With two stories retold from the Buddhist texts by Ven. K. Piyatissa Thera)
The bolded text implies they blame the other for one's plight.


Is there a Sanskrit (not Pali) version of the Five Precepts? Can anyone provide me a Sanskrit (not Pali) translation of the Five Precepts?

I believe that the link that follows would be your one of your best options for tracking down a Sanskrit version of the Five Precepts. It indicated that this is to be found in the liturgy. Get in touch with them and see if they can provide more information.

http://nalandatranslation.org/offerings/notes-on-the-daily-chants/commentaries/ritual-for-taking-the-five-precepts/


Domanassa & Dukkha in enlightened beings? What is the difference between domanassa & dukkha? Does domanassa arise in enlightened beings? Does bodily dukkha arise in enlightened beings?

OP: What is the difference between domanassa & dukkha?

There are many classifications of feelings:

Vedanā (Feeling)
According to the 5-fold classification, a distinction is made between mental and physical pain and pleasure.

Vedanā (Feeling)
In this classification, physical pain (Kāyika dukkha) is called simply dukkha and mental pain (cetasika dukkha) is called domanassa. Kāyika dukkha and cetasika dukkha are also dukkha, hence classified as such in 3 fold classification.

Dukkha - General Application, & various views regarding dukkha. As simple sensation (: pain) & related to other terms: (a) principally a vedanā, sensation, in particular belonging to the body (kāyika), or physical pain (opp. cetasika dukkha mental ill: see domanassa).
Domanassa - Domanassa means unpleasant feeling in mind. lit. 'sad-mindedness', grief, i.e. mentally painful feeling (cetasika-vedanā), is one of the 5 feelings (vedanā, q.v.)
OP: Does domanassa arise in enlightened beings?

No. An enlightened person feels Dukkha (Kāyika dukkha) but not Domanassa:

Bhikshus, when the instructed noble disciple is touched by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow,
or grieve, or lament, or beat his breast, or become confused. So he feels (only) one feeling: the bodily, not
the mental.

Sall’atthena Sutta

OP: Does bodily dukkha arise in enlightened beings?

Yes. An enlightened person feels Dukkha (Kāyika dukkha) but not Domanassa:

Bhikshus, when the instructed noble disciple is touched by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow,
or grieve, or lament, or beat his breast, or become confused. So he feels (only) one feeling: the bodily, not
the mental.

Sall’atthena Sutta


Why is fasting allowed in Buddhism? One of the answers to this question 'Is there a tradition or practice involving fasting in Buddhism or Buddhist countries?' says that fasting is followed by Tibetan Buddhists.

Why is fasting allowed since it is as extreme as gluttony and not a middle way? If I am right, following the path of the śramaṇic and yogic systems which existed at the time of Gautama Buddha, he subjected his body to extremes such as fasting and then realized that such extremes do not help in his enlightenment.

Has the Buddha prohibited fasting in any of his teachings?

There are a lot of scientifically proven benefits of fasting for short periods of time.

Within the earliest form of Buddhism, fasting after noon is recommended way of life.

This means they would get done with the "taking care of the body" part of their life out of the way early and can devote the most time to what is truly important: spiritual cultivation.

This is a fast of 16 hours. On the other hand, very long fasts that are weeks long is not the Middle Way and Buddha recommended against that.

Eating 3 meals a day is actually falling further on the opposite spectrum: eating too much, so be wary.


What is the antidote for conceit (mana)? It is said that in exerting four right efforts, one should try to replace unwholesome thought with wholesome thought.

Example, one should think of loving-kindness when ill-will thought arises.

So what should one contemplates for mana?

What should one contemplate for mana?

Here's what the early texts say:

  He should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the
  conceit, 'I am.' For a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of
  not-self is made firm. One perceiving not-self attains the uprooting
  of the conceit, 'I am' — Unbinding in the here & now."
  -Ud 4.1, AN 9.1, AN 9.3

  "When a monk's awareness often remains steeped in the perception of
  not-self in what is stressful, his heart is devoid of I-making &
  my-making with regard to this conscious body and externally with
  regard to all themes, has transcended pride, is at peace, and is
  well-released. If, when a monk's awareness often remains steeped in
  the perception of not-self in what is stressful, his heart is not
  devoid of I-making & my-making with regard to this conscious body and
  externally with regard to all themes, has not transcended pride, is
  not at peace, and is not well-released, then he should realize, 'I
  have not developed the perception of not-self in what is stressful;
  there is no step-by-step distinction in me; I have not arrived at the
  fruit of [mental] development.' In that way he is alert there. But if,
  when a monk's awareness often remains steeped in the perception of
  not-self in what is stressful, his heart is devoid of I-making &
  my-making with regard to this conscious body and externally with
  regard to all themes, has transcended pride, is at peace, and is
  well-released, then he should realize, 'I have developed the
  perception of not-self in what is stressful; there is a step-by-step
  distinction in me; I have arrived at the fruit of [mental]
  development.' In that way he is alert there.
  -AN 7.46

  Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see so that, in
  regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external
  signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit
  no longer occur within?”

  “Any kind of form whatsoever, Rahula, whether past, future, or
  present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
  far or near—one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom
  thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

  “Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever …
  Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of
  consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal
  or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—one
  sees all consciousness as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This
  is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
  -SN 22.91, SN 22.92


What is the exact number of jataka tales? What is the exact number of original jataka tales? If we look around we see Jataka tales, panchatantra, Esop's fables and many others are all mixed up. Where can I read original Jataka tales online?

What is the exact number of jātaka tales?

The Khuddaka Nikāya counts 547 Jātaka Tales.

Where can I read original Jātaka tales online?

At Sacred Texts there are 6 translated volumes that contain all of them.


Interpretation of Siddhartha by Herman Hesse Siddhartha by Herman Hesse is an excellent book and is written with the spirit of mystery and wonder that also permeates most Buddhist teachings.

    At the end of the book, Siddhartha has attained what appears to be Nirvana.  He is sitting with his friend Govinda.
  Govinda has spent the entirety of his adult life seeking Nirvana, and he is lamenting about this to Siddhartha; practically begging for some guidance and teaching.
  Siddhartha, feeling great compassion for his friend's suffering, instructs him to kiss his [Siddhartha's] forehead.  Govinda finds this odd, but is compelled by a great love of Siddhartha to accept.  As he does this; he attains some kind of enlightenment -  and though it's always seemed to me to be less 'significant' or permanent than what Siddhartha has attained - it is still a profound and magical moment of transformation.

Does anyone know what Hesse intended us to derive from this sequence? Specifically, has he spoken upon this issue, or written about it? It's always been completely mysterious to me.

I'm looking for something more solid than unverified speculation.  I'm not opposed to opinions, but I'd like that any opinion be informed by some source - either Hesse, or another writing about Hesse's works.

The paper titled "Between reverence and revolt:
Hesse and the two faces of religion" suggests that Hesse was primarily a (Christian) Protestant.

It says for example that in his 1921 diary he wrote:

  “And now the whole of Buddhism increasingly appears to me to be
  a kind of Indian Reformation, an exact equivalent of the Christian one”

So far as I know, a primary Protestant belief is that people are saved by God (maybe by their love of God and/or by God's love): a Christian's duty (to God) is faith and obediance, which God rewards with salvation (perhaps miraculous salvation).

I think it's also (especially in contrast with pre-Reformation Catholicism) something to do with a personal relationship, unmediated by clergy (and perhaps by ritual), between each person and God.

I guess that influences this sentence:

   But while Govinda with astonishment, and yet drawn by great love and expectation, obeyed his words, bent down closely to him and touched his forehead with his lips, something miraculous happened to him.

You wrote, " It's always been completely mysterious to me." Perhaps that's because it's so Christian-influenced.


How to avoid adding concepts to our thinking This question is mere practical: how a practitioner avoids that his mind wanders away into stories and dramas. There are moments that "noting" does not help.

The short answer is: by not adding concepts to the thinking, by not feeding it.

  There are moments that "noting" does not help.

Sometimes the mind is more quiet, sometimes it is more uneasy. Don't expect that in meditation you will always progress, or that the progress will be steady. Don't create the expectation that the mind will always settle when meditating, because it can be unsatisfying. Don't fight your mind and don't force it to calm down, it can be frustrating.

Instead, when you notice your mind is wandering, bring your awareness back to the object of meditation. The practice of meditation is not to stop adding concepts to the thinking actively, or to learn to interrupt the process of thought. But it is more like weakening the impulse and momentum of thought. Thinking will never completely cease as it inherent to the human being. But with practice you get less overwhelmed and blinded by it, thinking becomes subtle and calm. Then, don't be anxious about being peaceful or settling the mind, because this anxiety defeats the purpose of meditation, it just would feed the eager to think.

You can also practice to perceive the thoughts in a distanced manner. When someone is wandering on the thoughts, it is like he/she is immersed on them, being carried away by them. Then instead of being in the flow of the thinking, try to watch the thinking from outside. Be aware of the process of thought, perceive how it moves and watch it go away by itself. Instead of trying to block the chain of thoughts, something that is usually ineffective, try to stop feeding it and let it go.

There is also shamata, a practice to improve the stability of awareness. Begin by keeping the focus on the breath as long as you can. It seems that shamata is commonly disregarded for its simplicity, but it is very important. How can you meditate on something if you your awareness isn't stable? If you are really into it, I suggest you to read the book "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind" by Alan Wallace.

And last, vipassana can be helpful to perceive that it makes no sense to "feed the trains of thought". From one side, thinking usually tries to fight the impermanent and unfulfilling marks of existence, and asserts the identity (the concept of self). From other side, thinking itself is impermanent (it is mostly random in the long run), is unfulfilling (its desires and aversions are never completely met) and have no self (it is not absolute, nor apart from everything else). Although thought is produced, you don't need to get overwhelmed and blinded by it, you don't have to be driven by it.

EDIT:

Adding some more explanation on second paragraph after the quote, regarding interrupting the thought or stopping adding concepts to it.

And adding a bit more info to shamata and vipassana part.


What can be done about wanting to change things in the present that you can't? I've practiced meditation, and a lot of it seems to be about not dwelling in the past, or waiting for a future which may not arrive as we expect.

But what about the present?

The deal is relatively trivial or trite; I want someone to say something: apologise. Actually, any sane person would want the same, given the (past) behaviour or this person. All the same, it seems of overwhelming importance whenever I let my thoughts wander.

And while it is pretty trivial, when my thoughts do wander in this way, I believe that everything in my life is great just as it is, except this, which is making me want to give up completely.

It seems a little wrong to say just don't think about it. Is there any other option?

There is only now, the present moment. There are thoughts about the past, fantasies about the future that are arising in the present moment.

What must be done is to become aware when such a thought do arise, and to observe that thought, objectively. Without investigation or analysis, without reacting, by simply turning, holding and sustaining your attention to what has just appeared, just at time of its duration.

You will realize that when you do this, the thought will simply disappear, it will vanish.

Ultimately it is only a thought, nothing more. The problem is that we create more out of it. The desire to control what is out there will only lead to your own misery. Let it go, give it up.

Have you ever heard about satipatthana / vipassana ?

This should help you, friend.
http://en.dhammadana.org/vipassana/what_is_it.htm


What is the role of karma in the wheel of becoming? I can't seem to find resources that tell me the role of karma within the wheel itself rather than the nature of karma. Any suggestions?

On traditional bhava-chakra images, the center of the wheel shows pig, snake, and peacock - these are the three intoxicants of Want, Hate, and Confusion (really, Reification). In the next outer layer from the center are shown human figures: half of them going up and half falling down. This is karma, good and bad. Then the next outer layer shows the six realms. And the outermost layer shows 12 Nidanas.

The relationship between layers is, the inner layers serve as causes or engines for the outer layers. So the three intoxicants, mixed like paints in various proportions, give rise to various karma classified generally in the two types, and then the fruits of karma arise as experience of one of the realms. That's from the perspective of a sentient being looking from the inside out.

From the perspective of Buddha, looking at the wheel from the outside in, the whole thing is manifestation of the spontaneous individuation (bhava) aka pratitya-samutpada, represented by 12 Nidanas.

So the role of karma within the wheel itself is to create experience of one of the six realms. Meaning, the world that you experience at any given moment is a projection of your mental/emotional state, which in its turn comes from your karma and the intoxicants. So if you make effort to not act under influence of the three intoxicants, then over time your reality will change.


How to become a better decision maker? What are some Buddhist practices which would make someone a better decision maker? Does Sila improve the right view thus enabling better decisions, thoughts?

All 3:

Sila
Samadhi
Panna

helps towards better decision making.

Sila bring moral angle into decisions. Samadhi may help avoid spontaneous decisions as it is mastery over the mind. Panna helps to ensure decisions are not tainted by greed, hatred and delusion.

Right view is part of Panna not Sila.


According to Dependent Origination ..dependent on feeling, craving arises, are there exceptions? Are there exceptions that pleasant feeling is not followed by craving, and unpleasant feeling not followed by aversion?

I understand cases where when one is mindful, feeling does not lead to craving. Feeling just arises and ceases.

Another way of phrasing the question is: apart from absence of craving/aversion or arising of craving/aversion, does pleasant and unpleasant feeling lead to something else, or it does not lead to something else?

Paticca Samuppada doesn't even include aversion. But that doesn't mean Vedana(feeling) doesn't lead to aversion. Just that in Paticca Samuppada we are focusing on what keeps us bound to Samsara.

But if you talk about it in general, Vedana can lead to ignorance, craving and aversion. If the feeling is pleasant, craving is prominent. If the feeling is unpleasant, aversion is prominent. If the feeling is neutral, ignorance is prominent. Ignorance is present in all 3 instances.


Sourcing a prajñāpāramitā statement In the Madhyamakaśāstra, Venerable Vimalākṣa quotes the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra:
菩薩有我亦非行無我亦非行
"If the bodhisatva has a self, he cannot act. With no self too, he cannot act."
T1564.24b29
I've read this before, but finding it in the sūtra is proving daunting. Where in the root sūtra can we find the passage the Venerable is quoting? Also, where can we find the corresponding section of the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra commentary concerning this statement?

The "root" is a passage from the 18th chapter of the MMK:

諸佛或說我 或說於無我 諸法實相中 無我無非我 諸法實相者 心行言語斷 無生亦無滅 寂滅如涅槃 一切實非實 亦實亦非實 非實非非實
是名諸佛法
All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self. All dharmas’
true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self. All
dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken
language’s ending.There is no arising and no cessation, there is calm
extinction, such is nirvāṇa. All is real, all is unreal, all is both
real and unreal, all is neither real nor unreal: this is called all
Buddhas’ dharma.


Where can I read something more about Alara Kalama and Uddaka I want to know more about Gautama Siddharta teachers,
I know only little about their philosophy and practice that are mentioned in suttas. (eg. Ariyapariyesana Sutta)
Is there any other texts which explains little more about them.

Alexander Wynne writes about them in his book, The Origin of Buddhist Meditation. In particular, see chapter 2, which has the following introduction:

In some of the earliest biographies of the Buddha, it is claimed that the Bodhisatta was taught the ‘sphere of nothingness’ by Āḷāra Kālāma and the ‘sphere of neither perception nor non-perception’ by Uddaka Rāmaputta. Since these two persons do not appear outside the early Buddhist literature, their historicity is somewhat dubious. However, the two teachers have an incidental appearance in a number of early Buddhist texts besides the early biographies, and this supports the hypothesis that they really existed. In this chapter I will investigate the historical significance of all these passages; I hope to show that the two teachers really were historical persons, and that they almost certainly taught the Bodhisatta.

and the following conclusion:

In this chapter I have argued that the original (or at least the earliest extant) biographical account of the Bodhisatta’s awakening is found in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta. Its evidence suggests that Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta were historical persons, as was Rāma, the teacher of Rāmaputta. They probably taught the Bodhisatta, although this does not mean that the Bodhisatta did not try other methods. I therefore accept that Āḷāra Kālāma was situated in the vicinity of Kapilavatthu in Kosala as stated in the Bharaṇḍu-Kālāma Sutta, and that the Bodhisatta’s act of renunciation was to join Āḷāra Kālāma's hermitage. Uddaka Rāmaputta was based in Magadha, probably in or near
to Rājagaha. The sources for these geographical locations (the Bharaṇḍu-Kālāma Sutta and the Vassakāra Sutta) are trustworthy because the information in them is incidental: they have no hidden agenda. The goals of the two teachers—ākiñcañña(-āyatana) and nevasaññānāsaññā (-āyatana)—were thought by the teachers to be liberating, but the Bodhisatta rejected this. If this analysis is correct, it means that we have a knowledge of some events that occurred in the early part of the Buddha’s career. In the following two chapters, I will attempt to form an hypothesis about the intellectual development of the Buddha based on this historical understanding. In order to do this, it is important to establish the religious affiliation of the two teachers.


Pronounce the word "Buddh" - phonetics What is the phonetic of the word "Buddh" spoken in time 21:47 to 21:48 minutes of this video. I am a novice in phonetics.

The phonetic of the word Buddha is wriiten as
[bud̪ːʱə] in this wikipedia article

However, to my taste, the english prononciation of the B and U in the word Buddh does not matches exactly with that of the video.

Let me know how to phonetically write the word "Buddh" spoken in time 21:47 to 21:48 minutes of the video.

The question is tagged with "Pali language". Pronunciation in Wikipedia is written probably for Sanskrit. The movie is in Hindi. And English is another language. Pronunciation in different languages is different. For example, in Russian we pronounce Bood-dah.

When we study phonetics, we need to understand, phonetics of which language or dialect we study.

PS:

I meant phonetics in english. I need the phonetics in english of the word pronounced in hindi.

@MathStudent, the phonetics in English is of English words. The word pronounced in Hindi is Hindi word. Do you want phonetics of English word "Buddha" or of Hindi word "Buddha"?

Anyway, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Buddha

  Pronunciation:

  (UK) enPR: bo͝odə, IPA(key): /bʊdə/
  (US) enPR: bo͞odə, IPA(key): /buːdə/
  IPA(key): /bʊdːʰə/ (only in technical contexts) – approximation of Hindustani [ˈbʊdːʱə], which features a geminate ‘d’ and breathy voice on the second ‘d’, neither of which is idiomatic to English

That reference gives three different English pronounciations: one English; one American; and a "technical" one that's meant to sound a bit like Hindustani.


How to reconcile Mahayana ideas of "nama-rupa" with the Pali definition? I read the following ideas on the internet by Mahayana faithful:

  Namarupa means "name-form" - meaning "a concept of form", "an idea of
  form" - referring to our subjective representations of external and
  internal phenomena, as well as the most important Name-Form, our idea
  of self. So in my understanding, every time we delineate [external!] objects, our ideas of objects keep getting more concrete. And then these ideas feed back into the delineation process, making delineation more precise but also more rigid and fixed. Thus these two - "the process of delineation" and "the collection of ideas" - support each other in their growth and development.

And, in affirming the above idea and negating an alternate explanation, another Mahayana said:

  But your understanding of consciousness and name-form is not Buddhist.
  It's not even logically correct.

Now, in the Pali suttas of SN 12.2 and MN 9, "nama-rupa" is described as follows:

  And what are nama and rupa?

  Katamañca, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ?

  Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention.

  Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro—

  This is called nama.

  idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ.

  The four primary elements and form derived from the four primary
  elements.

  Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ.

  This is called rupa.

  Idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ.

In his translation of the Majjhima Nikaya in 1995, Bhikkhu Bodhi translated 'nama-rupa' as 'mentality-materiality' as follows:

  When, friends, a noble disciple understands mentality-materiality, the
  origin of mentality-materiality, the cessation of
  mentality-materiality, and the way leading to the cessation of
  mentality-materiality, in that way he is one of right view…and has
  arrived at this true Dhamma.

  Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention—these are called
  mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from
  the four great elements—these are called materiality.

  MN 9

Also, in the Pali, the word "nimitta" is often found, to mean "theme" or "sign". For example, ideas such as "beautiful" are said to be a "nimitta". The Pali (MN 43) says such nimitta are produced by greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, the impression is these nimitta are much more than mere "perception" ("sanna"). At least in the Pali, "nimitta" appear to be "mental formations" ("sankhara").

My questions are:

How does the Pali definition above about "feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention" describe the Mahayana idea of "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"? Particularly how do the Pali terms "contact", "intention" and "attention" operate as part of this Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"?
How is the Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form" different to the Pali "nimitta"?

Unlike Theravada tradition, which passes down the words, Mahayana tradition passes down the meaning - using whatever words and images that are most fitting for the occasion and the recipient.

So in Mahayana tradition there is a large number of texts that explain the major points of Buddhism in a variety of ways. Some are written as poems, some are as formal treatises, some are as stories and anecdotes, and some are expansive comments elaborating on topics arranged in methodical sequence. Also, in Tibetan Mahayana tradition, it is customary for a tutor to go over an ancient (Mahayana) text, explaining the overall meaning and commenting on the points made, so that the next generation does not get stuck with a text they no more understand.

Many of these texts and lectures cover development and arising of the samsaric mind. Because Mahayana is more focused on the overall meaning than on the exact form, many of these teachings do not literally go point by point over the Twelve Nidanas, but they do describe the overall process, some in more broad terms and some in more details. One such example is Lamp of Mahamudra by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol which I quote in this answer. Another example is Thrangu Rinpoche's lecture on Madhyantavibhanga. Yet another example is Chogyam Trungpa's lecture that I quote in this answer.

Not a single of these explanations is 100% perfectly clear, but combined together they absolutely paint the coherent picture.

I have read and was exposed to enough of these learning materials on the topic of development and arising of the samsaric mind that I now have a very strong confidence that I do understand the overall meaning.

The gist of Dependent Origination (a better translation would be "Gradual Auto-Arising"), as explained in these texts and by these teachers, is progressive/incremental/gradual development of differentiation, or development of the mind of delineation and designation of entities. This process starts from complete non-differentiation, goes through a phase of vagueness or semi-ambiguity, then matures to the point when individual objects are designated, and all this time in parallel with development of object-thinking there is a growing separation of this vs that, or self vs world. As this idea of self matures it starts getting involved in progressively more active interactions with the world of objects, until through the act of formulating an intention, carrying it out, appropriating the result, and connecting these three steps together, it gets enough cohesion as to become self-aware. Most explanations understandably paint this process in dark colors by showing how the increased separation leads to fear, aggression, indulging in pleasures, and eventual imprisonment in a web of results, relationships, obligations and other karmic constraints.

It is rather clear to me from these explanations that Namarupa-Nidana corresponds to an early phase of this process, when the mind has just accumulated enough impressions and tendencies as to start differentiating something, but before this something gets integrated across all sensory modalities as to become an "object" we can "come in contact" with. So Namarupa is a phase when the mind builds its notions of objects as cohesive entities. Chogyam Trungpa, for example, describes this phase so:

  Things slowly escalate that way. ... When an object has a conceptualized name, it becomes significant. ... Names and forms serve as ... philosophical reinforcement. For instance ... you think that the title should fit the person.

From many such explanations, plus the very etymology of nama-rupa itself, plus my own years of meditation experience, it is rather clear to me that namarupa stands for some sort of information about an object's identity.

Or, perhaps, Namarupa stands for the entire collection of such information, comprising a single individual, what today we would call the "psyche". That is a possibility. It could even stand for both. (Remember the situation with the word Dharma which means phenomena, things, thoughts, a way of life, or the Buddha's Teaching - depending on the context.) In any case, Namarupa is definitely of the nature of information about entities and identities, names and forms.

Now, to answer your concrete questions:

  How does the Pali definition above about "feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention" describe the Mahayana idea of "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"? Particularly how do the Pali terms "contact", "intention" and "attention" operate as part of this Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"?

The point here is that the Skandhas (MN 9 is about the only sutta that erroneously brings in the "contact") are a collection of information, they are nothing else but Namarupa. As was explained many times, e.g. in Questions of King Milinda, the distinct Skandhas are a product of logical analysis, not actually separate things. In actuality the "stuff" that is skandhas is not divided into the four or five neat "piles of brushwood", it is all mixed together into what's traditionally described either as burning fire or the ocean where all rivers' waters mix. So the skandhas are "made" from the same "material" as the previous nidana, just a bit more specialized by now. What used to be formations(tendencies,latencies) solidifies into ability to delineate stuff, which eventually matures into a collection of information about the world of objects and the corresponding "psyche" or the inner world. This is Namarupa.

  How is the Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form" different to the Pali "nimitta"?

Nimitta is what's known in cognitive sciences as identifying feature.

(Nimitta is not a "theme", that's a mistaken translation. The example of "a nimitta of beauty" speaks about a sign of beauty, such as for example long hair or big eyes or nice proportions or whatever.)

Instead, Nimitta is some basic clue that the mind uses to recognize stuff in the stream of raw sensory input. Namarupa is a more general concept, it is a notion of object, which may have one or more identifying features that (either individually or together) help us recognize the object.

Remember, according to Mahayana, objects do not exist, they are empty. Objects are constructs of mind; they are projections. Mahayana speaks about it all the time.

So, nimitta is just one part of this story, it is the sign by which an object is identified. When the sign is latched on, there come the chain of associative perception, the associated feelings, the associated impulses to do something in regards with the object etc. and all this information-about-the-object-and-the-mental-activity-it-enables is called Namarupa. I hope it's clear now.


Does the level of awareness of an awakened buddhist also stay the same event when he sleeps? But when an enlightened person lives he could be in the present all the time. But when you sleep your conscious/awareness may be different or just disappear.

So does the level of awareness of an enlightened person also change or stay the same even when sleeping.

sleep is a state of body, not a state of mind. If you are asleep your body has shut down the 5 senses, but your mind can still be active (dreaming).

  "As for those delusion-born fevers — burned with which the householder or householder's son would sleep miserably — that delusion has been abandoned by the Tathagata, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore he sleeps in ease. - AN 3.34

If you are practicing mindfulness and meditation regularly you can actually stop nightmares from happening by this habit.


Are the thirty-one planes of existence real places or just metaphors? And How the buddha know all of these things. I suppose he knew from meditation until enlighten? So it is possible that just by mediation alone one can know about other realm of existence.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Here's my personal interpretation.
A belief in hell, devas, and rebirth preceded (existed before) Buddhism and the Buddha. So when the Buddha was born, lived, and taught, people (non-Buddhists) already had a belief in hell, devas, rebirth, etc.
According to the page you referenced (see also Wikipedia's Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school) there isn't any one source e.g. a single sutta which identifies the 31 planes ... instead commentators have collected the 31 planes from several sources.
For example one of the suttas, which mentions the arupa-loka, is the Saleyyaka Sutta (MN 41). This starts as follows:

The brahman householders of Sala went to the Blessed One; etc.

When they were seated, they said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell; and what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world?"

In other words, the brahman householders open the discussion by asking, "Why are some people reborn in hell and some in heaven?"
Note that the question assumes/presumes the existence of heaven and hell.
In reply, the Buddha teaches them Dhamma: he defines or gives examples of good and bad bodily conduct, verbal conduct, mental conduct.
Incidentally, the sutta's message ends by saying that "deliverance here and now" is also possible (and is implicitly better than a heavenly rebirth):

"If a householder who observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct, should wish: 'Oh, that by realization myself with direct knowledge, I may here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of the heart and the deliverance by wisdom that are taint-free with exhaustion of taints!' it is possible that, by realization himself with direct knowledge, he may here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of the heart and the deliverance by wisdom that are taint-free with exhaustion of taints. Why is that? Because he observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct."

My personal opinion is that the purpose or intent of this sutta, is not to teach us about the various kinds of Gods (though it does list various kinds), rather it is to teach examples of good and bad conduct, and teach that each person's future (destination) depends on their conduct. Whether or not that's really the "sutta's intent", that's what I get out of it when I read it using my personal set of biases.
I see it as being similar to verse 393 of the Dhammapada, i.e. the Buddha uses the existing belief and vocubulary (e.g. the word "brahmin"), he redefines those words, and he reuses their language and belief-system to speak to people (who have pre-existing beliefs).
In other words I think that people of his day believed in rebirth, heaven, and hell, and he used that as a "hook" to tell them about good conduct, e.g. to say that their destination depended on their own behaviour.
I think you can see other examples where the Buddha selects his message to match the audience. When talking to a lay audience, for example, he talked about the six directions; when talking to monks, he talked about renunciation -- different messages to suit different audiences.

I think that a belief in or a doctrine of rebirth is tightly integrated into the Pali canon, for example a literal interpretation of the Four stages of enlightenment including "once-returner" and "non-returner" presume rebirth and rebirth in heaven.
IMO trying to remove a belief in "planes of existence" from Theravada might be like trying to remove a belief in "heaven" from Christianity i.e. it's not easy or a natural way to interpret the scripture.

One way to answer this is to say that, inline with the reasoning I gave in this answer, it might be useful to behave as if the realms exist, i.e. behave as if our conduct has future consequence.

Also, so far as I know, an orthodox answer from a Theravadin (i.e. a type of answer that I have seen from other users on this site) might be that you should practice to perfect yourself and your spiritual abilities until you can know/see the truth for yourself.


Choosing between wrong actions Recently I found myself having a conversation about having to choose between wrong actions. It begun with the following scenario:

  While walking through the forest a rabbit passes by your side, and you see the direction it goes. Seconds after that, a hunter arrives from the same direction the rabbit did, and asks you in which direction the rabit went. Everything points that the hunter wants to kill the rabbit. Would you lie to the hunter about the direction the rabbit went, in order to save the rabbit's life and the hunter's karma?

Here I see at least two limbs of the eightfold path that collide. On one hand, right speech tells me not to lie. On the other, right action and intention tells me not to kill nor be accomplice of killing by acting in such a way that will lead to that.

Since that I'd been thinking about it, and about whether it has sense to balance my beliefs, to calculate which precepts, paramis, limbs, etc. are more important, or more leading to illumination.

What I think right now is that it could be that sometimes the best option would be to break a rule I decided to live by, but I lack the wisdom to make that calculation. Also, if I see myself in a situation where I have to choose between which belief to betray, most probably I'm lacking the wisdom to see the third choice, since, I don't have to choose which tool (thinking of this beliefs as tools) leave.

I'd like to share it with you so new points of view and conclusions can arise and we can improve our understanding of our own paths.

PS: I tried to ask the question as clearly and neatly as I could, but I feel like it is a bit confusing. Please, feel free to change anything if you think that through that change it'll be clearer.

You could choose to say the following:

"Yes i know which direction the rabbit went. I do however choose not to share that information since it will probably lead to the killing of the animal and the creation of unwholesome kamma for you (hunter)".

This way you are honest but choose not to give the information because you know what might happen. This way the rabbit might still be found and killed by the hunter but you did what you could to prevent both the killing and the hunter from performing unwholesome deeds.

How can the rabbit perform unwholesome kamma?

If the mind of the rabbit is not developed enough it might give rise to strong aversion when killed by a hunter. If the rabbit instead dies a natural death, e.g. of old age it might have less or no aversion to the experience thereby creating less unwholesome kamma. This might result in rebirth in a higher realm for the rabbit.

What is important here is your Volition and Intention. You have a wholesome intention that is based in one of the 3 wholesome roots (kusala-mula), namely non-hatred (adosa). Since the intention is not tainted or polluted by the 3 unwholesome roots the action will be beneficial for oneself and others.

Said in another way. If the source is not tainted the ones that drink from it risk no infection.


Does meditation lead to incarnation? Continuous meditation will calm the mind, when eyes open there is a difference felt, this difference means the soul has change, is this change an incarnation ?
Similarly when hungry, thoughts are different & when satisfied with food there is relief, so this change from hungry to being relieved can be called an incarnation or change of soul ?

Meditation leads to the clarity and tranquility of the mind, and such mind is fundamental and instrumental for discerning truths from non-truths.


Beginner academic text recommendation I am an ordinary western man willing to start learning Buddhism, for now - just for curiousity. I have a B.Sc as for education (if the field DOES matter, that is either economics or computer science, because there are actually two of us, and we both are willing to learn). I do not have any previous knowledge of Buddhism besides pop culture references which are what Buddhism looks like to absolute most of people living.

I also do not want to learn about Buddhism based on online videos and random texts. I think there is some academic treatise on the topic. And there should be - science of religion should be interested in it. It is religion, learning about religion from random sources is potentially devastating. Any misconception that was just sounding appealing to a not so educated mind could ruin his worldview. I know these misconceptions could also arise from reading academic texts. But to a much lesser extent and only if you have exceptionally rich imagination - academic texts do not look to convert or convince you, just to educate you.

I would be so glad if someone, and preferably one who holds  a university degree from a science of religion course could share some of titles on topic and explain why they are so good.

I am also aware about this question: Introductory books to Buddhism
but the author seems to seek for books on Buddhism for a different purpose and never insists on "academicity" of text. I do. It would better be not so insightful about the meaning of life but rather about what Buddhism is taught like to students.

Thank you!

I just read this, and it is pretty solid. It's from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so it should meet the requirement that it be an academic text.

I recommend also reading the suttas (source texts), many of which are available here and simply reading them critically. A third option is to buy a text such as this which has suttas as well as commentary from a prominent Buddhist scholar, Bhikku Bodhi (Although he is Buddhist).

One reason why I would personally urge caution when reading anything without having the source texts is that they can be easily misrepresented. For example, one modern position that is not uncommon is that the teaching of rebirth was a metaphor or was simply a cultural belief. If one reads the source texts (the suttas) thoroughly however, it is very difficult to defend this view as the Buddha claims to have direct, personal knowledge of rebirth (e.g., in the Bhaya-bherava Sutta).

I hope this helps. Best.


How do you tell a 4-year-old who the Buddha was? I'm in the process of organising a family day at my Local Buddhist Centre. I'll be taking my 4-year-old daughter with me and she will once again ask me who is the Buddha? Previously I have always given really weak answers such as 'he was a very nice man who lived a long time ago'. Not very satisfying to anyone. So what would be an age appropriate way to describe who the Buddha is?

I want the description to be accurate and accessible to her. Obviously the more complete the better but realistically things are going to be left out. Also I don't want to slip into using Christian type words for Buddhist concepts - for instance not using heaven for nirvana, church for sangha etc...

So what would be a good way to describe who the Buddha is to her. I'll be honest I think I want a Dr Phil script of the month type answer for this.

Many Thanks for all/any help on this one.

A 4 year old can be told that the Buddha was a man who wanted to understand how to be happy and free and he worked very hard to understand how to be truly happy and free. Then he taught other people what he learned.

For many years the Buddha taught:

Sometimes people feel sad.
Sometimes the thing that makes people sad is not getting something they want or getting something they don't want.
There is a way not to be so sad about not getting what you want or getting something you don't want.
The way is to not think so much about what you want at all, but instead think about how you can be kind and helpful to your family, your teachers, your friends, other people, animals, bugs, and everything that lives. :)


What is Direct Seeing? Am I wrong or is "beginner's mind" a Zen term that means "seeing the experience you are aware of, moment by moment, as if you have never experienced concepts before... Like you have just been born with a mind that has not developed concepts yet and so you see things as they really are?

Is "Beginner's Mind" equivalent to  direct seeing or very related to direct seeing(or even clear comprehension)? Should insight meditators be "trying" to see this way, "trying" to see things as if the meditator was just born?
 ...OR...

Does direct seeing develop when a beginner starts by watching meditation objects "imperfectly" with all the concepts of each meditation object mixed with what really is and then  slowly through continuous practice the meditator  will be able to understand what is concept and what is direct experience? If this is true then its not a matter of effort or trying to see direct reality but more about "discerning"  what are concepts and what is the real object that is arising in experience by just seeing what the meditator sees. Maybe, I'm mistaken somewhere because it's not totally clear to me.

EDIT: to sum it up, I'm trying to see if I have the right idea about "direct seeing" and "Beginner's Mind". Also, I'm  generally asking if we put forth effort to experience directly or not. --Thank You & Metta

Note:

Beginner's Mind, or Shoshin, is a Chinese Buddhist term exported Japan, translated into English. The Chinese 初心 (pinyin: Chūxīn) is from Avatamsaka Sutra 《華嚴經》, describing the Bodhisattva when first making the Bodhisattva vow:

  三世一切諸如來　　靡不護念初發心

  All past, present and future Buddhas, none won't protect nor won't remember
  those who first set motion this heart [citta/mind] (an usual
  Classical Chinese grammar unusal for English, for will protect and
  remember).

  如菩薩初心　　不與後心俱

  Like the Bodhisattva's initial heart (here it means the
  willing/vowing determination to go the Bodhisattva Path)

This initially may also include the meaning of an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject as brutally hacked off 80% of the rest of the meaning by Wikipedia amateur experts, further corrupted when hitch-hiking by book-writing Zen teachers such as wikipedia-ed Shunryū Suzuki.

Of Import is, one shouldn't further corrupt this term with Theravadin's Luminious Mind. It will be very hazardous to the normal Buddhist student's learning, like smoke is hazardous to health. The excitement caused by nicotine is like the student excited by novelty, both are trading excitement with detrimental to health. Like the Law of Entropy in Physics, this freely hitch-hiking terms activities will further pollute the Dharma/Dhamma; also like Entropy, the end result is un-pure Dharma/Dhamma, or, chaos.

  Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of
  which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem
  to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and
  difficult of comprehension. Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the
  Thermodynamics of Fluids

In the Theravada tradition, we learn Yoniso Manasikhara. It means paying wise attention. And the knowledge or vision gained by paying wise attention is called the Yathā Bhūta ñāna Dassana or the vision of manifestations in their real form.


Which Buddhists say that there are no conventionally existent wholes, and for what reasons? Which Buddhists say that there are no conventionally existent wholes, and what's the best reason for the claim?

My "whole" I mean something more than the sum of its parts, an object that does not reduce to its parts.

Any sect of Buddhism which emphasises the emptiness of all things probably says that there are no existent wholes but some sects would say that there are conventionally existent wholes. In other words, we can only talk about their existence from a conventional perspective.

Here's a nice description which talks about a car's existence and its emptiness

    You're walking through town and you get to a street where you see a car. Is there a car? Sure thing! That's why we look left and right before crossing the street, and it would be dangerous to say that "there is no car" (without further explanation).

    But if we take one car aside and take a closer look, there's no such thing as a car. The windshield isn't it, the wheels aren't it, the chassis isn't it, neither is the engine. What we call a car is just a bundle, a construct not only physically but conceptually.

It's a point which can be difficult to convey. Something is there which will hit you when you cross the street, we call this a car. On the other hand, if we take that car and dismantle it into its pieces we can not find any piece which is the essential car-like-nature.

This is the same as when we look at the self. We can investigate all five aggregates (body, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) and there is no inerrant soul or "me" to be found. However, we can still talk about the "me" existing by convention.


How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? Looking at the Lists of fetters I see "conceit" and "identity view" listed separately ... and the four stages of enlightenment say that identity view will be abandoned (in the first stage) before conceit (in the fourth stage).

Wikipedia article about Conceit includes,

  There is conceit or pride when we consider ourselves important.

How is it that "conceit" could continue after "identity view" has been abandoned?

A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self. This is seen when, after the arising of a conceited thought, one mentally discards it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid.
Identity view, sakkāya-diṭṭhi, is the belief that the aggregates are self; it is this belief that gives rise to conceit, greed, anger, etc., but it is seperate from all of these. It is useful to remember that, while one without sakkāya-diṭṭhi can still give rise to defilement, such defilements are only remnants of past belief in self and are certain to disappear within seven lifetimes at most.
Mahasi Sayadaw discusses the difference and as always has interesting things to say:

At the stage of Sotāpanna, Stream Enterer, the fetters of Personality-belief (false view of individuality), doubts and uncertainty, and adherence to rites and rituals have been completely eradicated. But a Stream Enterer is not yet free from Asmi-māna, the I-conceit. To take pride in one's ability, one's status, "I can do; I am noble," is to hold on to the I-conceit. But a Stream Winner's conceit relates only to the genuine qualities and virtues, he actually possesses and is not false pride based on non-existing qualities and virtues.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

What he is referring to is that fact that of the nine types of conceit, only three can arise in a sotapanna. The factors are:

thinking one is superior
thinking one equal
thinking one lesser

and

one is superior
one is equal
one is lesser

(3x3=9)
and a Sotapanna can only give rise to true conceit, viz:

thinking one is superior when one is superior
thinking one is equal when one is equal
thinking one is lesser when one is lesser

Mahasi Sayadaw also discusses the curious case of Khemaka, who was struggling with the difference himself (asmi means "I am", māna is conceit):

Asmi māna was once the subject of discussion between the sixty elder monks and Ashin Khemaka, an Anāgāmi, on the question of Arahatship. The latter told them through their intermediary, Dasaka, that he could not discover atta-self, or its attributes in any of the upādānakkhandhās, aggregates of clinging. The elders then concluded that he had become an Arahat and asked him if he was. This called for further elucidation and so he said, "I cannot as yet own myself an Arahat, but I have the notion that I am still in the realm of the five aggregates of clinging (asmīti adhigatam), although I would hesitate to say that this particular thing is 'I'. Then the elders again enquired, "Does I exist in feeling, or perception, or mental formations or consciousness?"
This drove Ashin Khemaka to the presence of the elders so that he could offer a personal explanation which runs as follows-
"Brothers! I cannot say I am matter; nor can I say I am feeling or perception or mental formation: or consciousness or any other beyond the five aggregates. But there still clings to me the notion that I am still in the realm of the five aggregates. But at the same time I cannot say, "This is I."
Ashin Khemaka did not consider any one of the upādānakkhandhās as asmī in the conventional sense. This term suggests that he thought, "I know. I can. I am great." This is self-conceit which grows out of the accomplishment of virtue that he had truly achieved. Consider the fragrance of a water-lily. Does it originate from its stem? From its petals? From its anothers? One can say only conventionally that it emanates from the lily, but one cannot find any rūpa matter that produces fragrance. The notion of asmī is there; but I cannot say, "This is I".
Ashin Khemaka then continued, "An Ariya (the Noble One) destroys the bonds of individuality, doubts, false religious practices, lust and animosity. But at this stage he cannot break away from asmī māna, asmī chanda and anusaya māna. They are subtle kinds of attachment to self, desire for self and inclination toward self. If, however the Ariyan disciple notes with mindfulness the arising and passing away of the five aggregates of clinging, such subtle passions will subside.
"Consider this metaphor of a washerwoman. She washes clothes with soap and water and they become clean-white. Still they smell of soap. Only when they are kept in a scented box they lose their odour. If one continually meditates on the five aggregates of clinging, all these subtle passions will be washed away clean and one can remain without any vestiges of such passions.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Silavanta Sutta


What does ཕལ་པོ་ཆེ། (translated to the Flower Ornament Sutra) really mean? I am not versed in Tibetan language but wanted to know what the literal meaning of ཕལ་པོ་ཆེ། is, which is translated into either of these

The Sūtra of the Buddhas' Vastness
The Flower Ornament Sūtra

Those are very different words, so I'm wondering what the essence of the etymology or whatever is. Wondering if one could layout the literal components of the word and how they could possibly be translated.

ཕལ་པོ་ཆེ་ is mdo phal po che (Dopel Poché in Standard Tibetan) according to the Rigpa

mdo means "sutra"
phal by itself means "ordinary (person)"
po is a masculine agentive
che means "great", "greatest"

One of the English translations on this site is "great host".


Who is the laughing Buddha? Given that Gautama Buddha was an ascetic until shortly before his enlightenment and several Dhammapada verses reflect a moderate attitude toward food, such as:

  Verse 7: He who keeps his mind on pleasant objects, who is uncontrolled in his senses, immoderate in his food, and is lazy and lacking in energy, will certainly be overwhelmed by Mara, just as stormy winds uproot a weak tree. source: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=007

it's unlikely he looked much like the image below. But the statue pictured below is often referred to as a "laughing Buddha". What is the story of the laughing Buddha?

His name is Budai and many people in the West mistake his image as being Gautama Buddha. Budai is usually identified with or seen as an incarnation of Maitreya, the future Buddha.