What is it like to experience enlightenment? What is it like to expereince enlightenment? Does it change a person and if so, how?

The answer does somewhat depend on which tradition you follow, and what you mean by "enlightenment". For example, in Theravada Buddhism it could refer to either someone who has let go of everything (āsavakkhaya), or someone who has come to understand everything (sabbaññū). And in Mahayana, from what I've heard, a bodhisatta who is reborn again and again is considered to be enlightened (according to the Theravada, this would require attachment, a sign of lack of enlightenment).

That being said, here are some quotes and thoughts about what enlightenment is like (from a Theravada perspective):

The Buddha

First, we have the Buddha's enlightenment. Given the profundity of his wisdom, compassion, and purity, it has a bit of a different flavour from that of an "ordinary" arahant:

  At that time the blessed Buddha dwelt at Uruvelâ, on the bank of the river Nerañgarâ at the foot of the Bodhi tree (tree of wisdom), just after he had become Sambuddha. And the blessed Buddha sat cross-legged at the foot of the Bodhi tree uninterruptedly during seven days, enjoying the bliss of emancipation.

  ...

  Knowing this the Blessed One then on that occasion pronounced this solemn utterance: 'When the real nature of things becomes clear to the ardent, meditating Brâhmana, then all his doubts fade away, since he realises what is that nature and what its cause.'

  ...

  Knowing this the Blessed One then on that occasion pronounced this solemn utterance: 'When the real nature of things becomes clear to the ardent, meditating Brâhmana, then all his doubts fade away, since he has understood the cessation of causation.'

  ...

  Knowing this the Blessed One then on that occasion pronounced this solemn utterance: 'When the real nature of things becomes clear to the ardent, meditating Brâhmana, he stands, dispelling the hosts of Mâra, like the sun that illuminates the sky.'

  -- Mv 1 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

(These utterances are also found in the Udana.)

The Buddha's enlightenment changed him in several ways:

He gained unobstructed knowledge, meaning he could call forth the correct answer to any question he posed.

  “Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I know.

  -- AN 4.24 (Bodhi, trans)

His enlightenment removed not only all mental defilements (as would be the case with any arahant), but it also removed any vāsanā - idiosyncracies - from his character. While ordinary arahants retain many of their idiocsyncracies gained from their parents, past lives, etc., a Buddha acts and speaks like a Buddha. (I don't have a reference off-hand; it's generally known in Theravada Buddhism, but I can find a source, if required)
His knowledge led him to disinclination to teach:

  And then the following . . . . stanzas, unheard before, occurred to the Blessed One: 'With great pains have I acquired it. Enough! why should I now proclaim it? This doctrine will not be easy to understand to beings that are lost in lust and hatred.

  'Given to lust, surrounded with thick darkness, they will not see what is repugnant (to their minds), abstruse, profound, difficult to perceive, and subtle.'

  -- Mv 1 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

That being said, his deeply ingrained compassion led him to accept the invitation to teach and work tirelessly for 45 years without concern for his own well-being; some arahants might refuse the invitation to teach, disinclined to bother themselves.

  Then the Blessed One, when he had heard Brahmâ's solicitation, looked, full of compassion towards sentient beings, over the world, with his (all-perceiving) eye of a Buddha. And the Blessed One, looking over the world with his eye of a Buddha, saw beings whose mental eyes were darkened by scarcely any dust, and beings whose eyes were covered by much dust, beings sharp of sense and blunt of sense, of good disposition and of bad disposition, easy to instruct and difficult to instruct, some of them seeing the dangers of future life and of sin.

  -- Ibid

The Pacceka-Buddha

Next, we have the enlightenment of a private (pacceka) Buddha. Private Buddhas are interesting and a bit of a mystery, I think. On the one hand, they have the ability to attain freedom from suffering themselves, but on the other hand, they lack the ability to teach what they have themselves learned. They could be likened to a street fighter who learned how to fight without instruction and so is unable to teach others how to fight beyond telling them to go figure it out on their own.

Private Buddhas are perfectly at peace with themselves, but solitary and unattached. They tend to retreat at the first sign of conflict and shy away from teaching or becoming religious leaders. Having neither the wisdom to see the potential in others nor the Buddha's compassion leading them to accept invitations to teach, they tend to offer simple lessons and live content in their own freedom. One of the great lessons we have from the private Buddhas is found in the Sutta Nipata, the Khaggavisana Sutta:

  If one acquires a clever companion, an associate righteous and wise, let him, overcoming all dangers, wander about with him glad and, thoughtful.

  If one does not acquire a clever companion, an associate righteous and wise, then as a king abandoning (his) conquered kingdom, let him wander alone like a rhinoceros.

  -- Sn 44-45 (Fausboll, trans)

There's an interesting story of a Pacceka-Buddha in the DhpA, where he befriends a dog and actually appears to play a game with the dog, testing its intelligence and loyalty:

  The dog ran before him, barking constantly. From time to time the Private Buddha tested the dog by taking the wrong path; but every time he did so the dog, by standing across the path and barking, intimated to him to take the other path.

  One day the Private Buddha took the wrong path, and when the dog tried to stop him, without turning back, he pushed away the dog with his foot and went on. The dog, perceiving that he did not intend to turn back, took the hem of his undergarment in his teeth and dragged him along until he brought him to the right path. Such was the strength of the affection of the dog for the Private Buddha.

  -- DhpA 16 (Burlingame, trans)

Private Buddha's do teach from time to time, and possess great wisdom in their own right. They also are represented as possessing compassion in their support for the spiritual development of others. One memorable story is in relation to the being who later became Anuruddha:

  Now one day a Private Buddha named Upariṭṭha arose from a Trance of Cessation in Gandhamādana, and considered within himself, “To whom shall I show favor to-day?” Straightway the thought came to him, “To-day I ought to show my favor to Annabhāra.” And perceiving within himself, “At this moment Annabhara is on the point of returning home from the forest with his grass,” he took bowl and robe, and proceeding by supernatural power, appeared before Annabhara. Annabhara, seeing that the bowl in his hand was empty, asked him, “Reverend Sir, have you received no food?” The Private Buddha replied, “It is my expectation to receive food, man of great merit.” “Well then, Reverend Sir, wait a moment,” said Annabhara.

  -- DhpA 266 (Burlingame, trans)

Annabhara gives him his meal, then is asked to "sell" the merit of his good deed to a rich man. Not sure what that would mean, he asks the Pacceka Buddha:

  So he went quickly to the Private Buddha and asked him, “Reverend Sir, the Treasurer Sumana has offered me a thousand pieces of money, asking me to make over to him the merit I acquired by giving you a portion of alms. What shall I do?”

  The Private Buddha answered by a simile: “Wise man, it is as if in a village consisting of a hundred families, a man were to light a lamp in a single house and the rest of the villagers were to moisten their wicks with their own oil, light their lamps, and take them away with them. [123] Is that light the light of the first lamp or not?” “Reverend Sir, in that case the light of the first lamp has multiplied itself.” “Wise man, precisely so is it with the alms you gave. Whether it be a ladleful of broth, or a spoonful of boiled rice, when a man makes over to others the merit of a portion of alms which he has given, the merit thereof increases according to the number of persons to whom he gives. To be sure, you have given but a single portion of alms. But in making over the merit thereof to the treasurer, that one portion of alms has become two, of which one belongs to you and the other to him.”

  -- Ibid

Note that these are just stories, but they do offer some insight into the nature of a Pacceka Buddha according to tradition. I always think of Lao Tzu as fitting the role of a self-enlightened being who couldn't fully teach his enlightenment to others.

The Arahant

The arahant is the quintessential enlightened being in Theravada Buddhism; even the Buddha is described as being an arahant. Mahasi Sayadaw gives a good description of what an arahant is like in his discourse on Dependent Origination:

  Arahants have no illusions about the nature of sense-objects. They are aware of their unsatisfactoriness, which means they fully realise the truth of suffering because they are free from delusion. So they have no craving for anything. Inevitably, they have to fulfill the biological needs of the body such as eating, sleeping, etc., but they regard this as conditioned suffering and find nothing agreeable. The question arises whether they should long for a speedy death to end such suffering. Nevertheless, the desire for early death or dissolution of the physical body is aversion, which the arahant has also removed. In the Theragatha, the Elder’s Verses, an arahant says that he neither wishes to die nor to live. The arahant does not wish to live a long life, for life means a burden of suffering inherent in the aggregates. Although the aggregates need constant care and attention, they are not reliable in the least. To many middle-aged or old people, life offers little more than frustration, disappointment, and bitterness. Living conditions deteriorate, physical health declines and only disability and death await them. Yet, because of ignorance and attachment, many people take delight in existence. However, the arahants are disillusioned, so they find life unattractive.

  Yet the arahants don’t desire death either, since they have conquered ill-will. They equanimously anticipate their parinibbana, an expectation that is analogous to a worker’s expectation of wages. A worker does not like to face hardships and privations to make a living, but does not want to be unemployed either. A worker wants only money and expects payment. Likewise, the arahants await death, so when they think of their lifespan, they wonder how long they must bear the burden of the body. Because of their total disillusionment, their life-stream ceases completely after parinibbana, so it is called cessation without any remainder (anupadisesanibbana).

I don't think there is much to add to this description. The Visuddhimagga goes into great detail about what it means to be enlightened in the final chapter, like what fetters are destroyed at what stage, etc. The Thera and Theri gathas have verses from enlightened beings that offer a sense of their state of mind.

The Sekkha

Besides an arahant, it is proper to describe the other three types of ariya puggala as "enlightened", or at least "partially enlightened". They have all experienced nibbana for themselves, and it has changed them all profoundly. They are considered to have *become family" (gotrabhu) and will never return to the state of an ordinary being. They still have remenants of unwholesome behaviour - a sotapanna might still cry (e.g. Visakha when her granddaughter died), an anagami might still become distracted, etc. They all have unshakeable faith in the triple gem and no doubt or wrong views about the Buddhadhamma. More about the specific defilements discarded at each level can  be found in the last chapter of the Visuddhimagga.

The Bodhisatta

As mentioned, in Mayahana Buddhism, I understand that there are certain beings called Bodhisattvas who are considered enlightened but stay in samsara to help others. Some believe Buddhas do the same, I think. I don't have anything to say about such teachings, except that such beings would not be considered enlightened in Theravada Buddhism.

Either way, it is worth talking about the Bodhisatta, a being who has made the determination to become a Buddha but hasn't yet attained Buddhahood, since this is a part of the process of change called enlightenment.

A Bodhisatta is a being who could become an enlightened arahant but does not:

  While thus I lay upon the ground,
  Arose within me many thoughts:
  "To-day, if such were my desire,
  I my corruptions might consume.

  "But why thus in an unknown guise
  Should I the Doctrine's fruit secure?
  Omniscience first will I achieve,
  And be a Buddha in the world.

  "Or why should I, a valorous man,
  The ocean seek to cross alone?
  Omniscience first will I achieve,
  And men and gods convey across.

  "Since now I make this earnest wish,
  In presence of this Best of Men,
  Omniscience sometime I'll achieve,
  And multitudes convey across.

  "I'll rebirth's circling stream arrest,
  Destroy existence's three modes;
  I'll climb the sides of Doctrine's ship,
  And men and gods convey across.

  -- Jat-A 46-69 (from Buddhism In Translation, Warren, trans.)

The reason it is worth mentioning is that a change overcomes one who makes this vow in front of a Buddha; they become a niyata bodhisatta - one who is certainly destined for Buddhahood. As the Jataka stories show, they have many qualities that at times seem to surpass those of even arahants. They still, however, have not overcome all greed, anger or delusion, nor have they experienced nibbana or come to understand the four noble truths for themselves.

Nibbāna

Finally a few words on the actual experience of nibbāna, since that is what is considered to be the experience of enlightenment. The Milinda-Panha has some things to say on the experience, comparing nibbana to a lotus, water, medicine, an ocean, etc. Some of these similes contain descriptions of the experience, e.g.:

  “Like water, it cools the
  fever of defilements and
  quenches the thirst of craving.

  “Like medicine, it protects beings who are poisoned
  by the defilements, cures the disease of suffering, and nour-
  ishes like nectar.

  “Like food, which sustains life,
  nibbàna
   drives away
  old age and death; it increases the spiritual strength of
  beings; it gives the beauty of
  virtue, it removes the distress
  of the defilements, it relieves
  the exhaustion of all suffering.

  “Like a wish-fulfilling gem, it
  fulfils all desires, causes
  delight and is lustrous.

  -- The Debate of King Milinda (Pesala, trans)

Nagasena also says:

  “How is nibbàna to be shown? By freedom from distress and danger, by purity and by coolness. As a man, afraid and terrified at having fallen among enemies, would be relieved and blissful when he had escaped to a safe place; or as one fallen into a pit of filth would be at ease and glad when he had got out of the pit and cleaned up; or as one trapped in a forest fire would be calm and cool when he had reached a safe spot.

  -- Ibid

Conclusion

If you were looking for a short answer, apologies :) Unfortunately, the experience of enlightenment is paccata (private), and not to be understood by ordinary beings. So in a sense, your question is only answerable by your own experience. Enlightenment is like the breaking of a dam; it can not be undone, and it signifies a profound and categorical change of one's entire being. It is called "becoming family" (gotrabhu) in the sense of one being categorically different from an ordinary individual. In that sense, it is not gradual or graded, it is distinct and complete.

The realization of enlightenment is best described as the attainment of the four noble truths. In brief, this means practicing until the moment where one realizes that the five aggregates are impermanent (unstable), suffering (unsatisfying or stressful), and non-self (empty and uncontrollable). The next moment one enters into nibbana, a complete cessation of arisen phenomena that is perfect and unadulterated peace. Subsequent to this, one dwells with clear knowledge of the nature of true peace and a freedom from attachment to suffering. It is the most profound change that could possibly occur for a sentient being, and it is considered to be the final goal of existence.


Considering other traditions than Goenka Vipassana for better Right Effort, Right Concentration and Right Mindfullness I have been on three 10-day Goenka Vipassana retreats in the past four years. I continue to meditate every day, although I question my technique, my progress, and eventually if this is the right tradition for me. Hence, I am naturally caught up in doubt as a primary hindrance.

Goenka Vipassana being my only real exposure to any type of Buddhist meditation, I am trying to learn more about tradition because, for one, I feel like I still haven't gotten a handle on my samadhi. By that, I mean I still haven't achieved a quiet mind or a fully absorbed mind.

I am wondering if I should pursue a tradition that doesn't dismiss the dhyanas the way that Goenka Vipassana does? I like that there ares stages. I do better with structure in general, and could be more intent and directed in my practice if I have had more defined path with clear markers along the way. However, I do keenly sense my bodily sensations and can achieve a free flow of energy. Still, even as I experience awareness of subtle sensations and a free flow, my mind is not clear of thought.
Which brings me to another question -- am I supposed to observe thoughts as they arise, or keep my focus on my breathe (if pracaticing anapana) or sensations when doing Vipassana?
A final question: is bhanganana a type of dhyana? I have not reached bhanga, and I am not even sure that I have reached the first dhyana, but the definitions of each that I have read seem to correspond. How does one skip the dhyanas but then achieve bhanga?

Forgive my relative ignorance of these matters. I live in a urban area that has a lot of different meditation centers in the vicinity, including a Shambhala (Tibetan) Center. I am curious to explore, although I am a bit hesitant about the more ritual-based Mahayana traditions as they seem too much like organized religion to me. Essentially, my goal, if I admit that I have one, is to make progress, is to deepen my practice, to achieve profound states of peace and clarity, to experience impermanence directly, to gain this ultimate wisdom. I am not attached Goenka Vipassana, and open to different approaches that will help me to improve my concentration (samadhi) that will, in tern, allow for panna (wisdom). Thank you.

I still haven't achieved a quiet mind or a fully absorbed mind. I am wondering if I should pursue a tradition that
  doesn't dismiss the dhyanas the way that Goenka Vipassana does.... different approaches that will help me to improve my concentration (samadhi) that will, in turn, allow for panna (wisdom).

The above has the path backwards; which is a common misunderstanding in Theravada Buddhism, due to the common preaching about 'sila, samadhi, panna'.

The Noble Eightfold Path starts with wisdom (called Right Understanding or Right View). It is wisdom that achieves a quiet mind (rather than samadhi). If the mind is not quiet it cannot achieve jhana therefore it is incorrect to believe jhana is required to make the mind quiet. Jhana itself is the quiet mind and what is required to reach jhana is wisdom. How the Buddha-To-Be used wisdom to make his mind quiet and reach jhana is described in MN 19 (the Dvedhāvitakka Sutta).

  am I supposed to observe thoughts as they arise, or keep my focus on my breathe (if pracaticing anapana) or sensations when doing
  Vipassana?

Per MN 19, the practise is using wisdom or wise reflection to remove thoughts.

  A final question: is bhanganana a type of dhyana?

Based on its name, "bhanganana" appears to be a "nana" or "knowledge" ("wisdom"); therefore it is not a type of "jhana" ("concentration"). Regardless, what various "nana" are is unimportant. What is important is to establish a quiet & calm mind.

"Vipassana" means "clear seeing" or "insight". "Vipassana" automatically arises when the mind is clear & quiet therefore it is not necessary to "practise" vipassana. What must be practised is making the mind quiet; which requires using wisdom to prevent & abandon unwholesome thoughts.

  And what is right effort? It’s when a mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort, exerts the mind and strives so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t arise. They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen are given up. They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind and strive so that skillful qualities that have not arisen do arise. They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind and strive so that skillful qualities that have arisen remain, are not lost, but increase, mature, and are fulfilled by development. This is called right effort.

  SN 45.8

  One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
  wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
  mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort &
  right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

  One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong resolve & for entering right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to
  abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is
  one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view,
  right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right resolve.

  MN 117

MN 117 also describes how jhana (right concentration) leads to right knowledge (nana):

  Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In
  one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right
  speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In
  one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right
  mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In
  one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right
  knowledge, right release comes into being


What are the strengths and weaknesses of attempts to describe Nirvana in scripture? How can we evaluate which description of nirvana is accurate? Also what problems does King Millinda point out about nirvana in his 80th dilemma?

The Pali suttas provide accurate descriptions of Nirvana, such as the 'destruction of craving' (Dhammapada 154; MN 37); 'visible here-&-now destruction of greed, hatred & delusion' (AN 3.55; SN 45.7); 'supreme happiness' (Dhammapada 203); and 'Simile of the Ocean'.

Therefore, the description by Nâgasena given to King Millinda in his 80th dilemma should be compared to the Pali suttas to test its accuracy.

That Nagasena offered a very lengthy answer shows he did not really have a "dilemma" & spoke falsely, when he said: 'Nirvâna, O king, has nothing similar to it. By no metaphor, or explanation, or reason, or argument can its form, or figure, or duration, or measure be made clear.'

These links might help: Nibbana For Everyone & Bhikkhu Pesala What Is Nibbāna?

Have you bothered to read the text or are you a university student looking for an easy answer?

  'O happy word, Nâgasena! Speak then, quickly, that I may have an
  explanation of even one point in the characteristics of Nirvâna.
  Appease the fever of my heart. Allay it by the cool sweet breezes of
  your words!'

  'There is one quality of the lotus, O king, inherent in Nirvâna, and
  two qualities of water, and three of medicine, and four of the ocean,
  and five of food, and ten of space, and three of the wish-conferring
  gem, and three of red sandal wood, and three of the froth of ghee, and
  five of a mountain peak.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, that one quality of the lotus which you said was inherent in Nirvâna,--which is that?'

  'As the lotus, O king, is untarnished by the water 3, so is Nirvâna
  untarnished by any evil dispositions. This is the one quality of the
  lotus inherent in Nirvâna.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those two qualities of water which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?'

  'As water, O king, is cool and assuages heat, so also is Nirvâna
  cool, and assuages the fever arising from all evil dispositions.
  This is the first quality of water inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O
  king, as water allays the thirst of men and beasts when they are
  exhausted and anxious, craving for drink, and tormented by thirst, so
  does Nirvâna allay the thirst of the craving after lusts, the
  craving after future life, and the craving after worldly prosperity
  . This is the second quality of water inherent in Nirvâna.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those three qualities of medicine, which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?'

  'As medicine, O king, is the refuge of beings tormented by poison, so
  is Nirvâna the refuge of beings tormented with the poison of evil
  dispositions. This is the first quality of medicine inherent in
  Nirvâna. And again, O king, as medicine puts an end to diseases, so
  does Nirvâna put an end to griefs. This is the second quality of
  medicine inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as medicine is
  ambrosia, so also is Nirvâna ambrosia. This is the third quality
  of medicine inherent in Nirvâna.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those four qualities of the ocean which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?'

  'As the ocean, O king, is free from (empty of) corpses, so also is
  Nirvâna free from (empty of) the dead bodies of all evil
  dispositions. This, O king, is the first quality of the ocean
  inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as the ocean is mighty and
  boundless, and fills not with all the rivers that flow in to it; so is
  Nirvâna mighty and boundless, and fills not with all beings (who
  enter in to it). This is the second quality of the ocean inherent in
  Nirvâna. And again, O king, as the ocean is the abode of mighty
  creatures, so is Nirvâna the abode of great men--Arahats, in whom the
  Great Evils and all stains have been destroyed, endowed with
  power, masters of themselves. This is the third quality of the ocean
  inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as the ocean is all in
  blossom, as it were, with the innumerable and various and fine flowers
  of the ripple of its waves, so is Nirvâna all in blossom, as it were,
  with the innumerable and various and fine flowers of purity, of
  knowledge, and of emancipation. This is the fourth quality of the
  ocean inherent in Nirvâna.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those five qualities of food which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?'

  'As food, O king, is the support of the life of all beings, so is
  Nirvâna, when it has been realised, the support of life, for it
  puts an end to old age and death. This is the first quality of food
  inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as food increases the strength
  of all beings, so does Nirvâna, when it has been realised, increase
  the power of Iddhi of all beings. This is the second quality of food
  inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as food is the source of the
  beauty of all beings, so is Nirvâna, when it has been realised, the
  source to all beings of the beauty of holiness. This is the third
  quality of food inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as food puts
  a stop to suffering in all beings, so does Nirvâna, when it has been
  realised, put a stop in all beings to the suffering arising from every
  evil disposition. This is the fourth quality of food inherent in
  Nirvâna. And again, O king, as food overcomes in all beings the
  weakness of hunger, so does Nirvâna, when it has been realised,
  overcome in all beings the weakness which arises from hunger and every sort of pain. This is the fifth quality of food inherent in
  Nirvâna.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those ten qualities of space which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?'

  'As space, O king, neither is born nor grows old, neither dies nor
  passes away nor is reborn, as it is incompressible, cannot be
  carried off by thieves, rests on nothing, is the sphere in which birds
  fly, is unobstructed, and is infinite; so, O king, Nirvâna is not
  born, neither does it grow old, it dies not, it passes not away, it
  has no rebirth, it is unconquerable, thieves carry it not off, it
  is not attached to anything , it is the sphere in which Arahats
  move, nothing can obstruct it, and it is infinite. These are the ten
  qualities of space inherent in Nirvâna.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those three qualities of the wish-conferring gem which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?'

  'As the wishing-gem, O king, satisfies every desire, so also does
  Nirvâna. This is the first quality of the wishing-gem inherent in
  Nirvâna. And again, O king, as the wishing-gem causes delight, so
  also does Nirvâna. This is the second quality of the wishing-gem
  inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as the wishing-gem is full
  of lustre, so also is Nirvâna. This is the third quality of the
  wishing-gem inherent in Nirvâna.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those three qualities of red sandal wood which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?' 'As red
  sandal wood, O king, is hard to get, so is Nirvâna hard to attain to.
  This is the first quality of red sandal wood inherent in Nirvâna. And
  again, O king, as red sandal wood is unequalled in the beauty of its
  perfume, so is Nirvâna. This is the second quality of red sandal wood
  inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as red sandal wood is praised
  by all the good, so is Nirvâna praised by all the Noble Ones. This is
  the third quality of red sandal wood inherent in Nirvâna.'
  [322] 'Venerable Nâgasena, those three qualities of the skimmings of ghee 1 which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?'

  'As ghee is beautiful in colour, O king, so also is Nirvâna
  beautiful in righteousness. This is the first quality of the ghee inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as ghee has a pleasant
  perfume, so also has Nirvâna the pleasant perfume of righteousness.
  This is the second quality of ghee inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O
  king, as ghee has a pleasant taste, so also has Nirvâna. This is
  the third quality of ghee inherent in Nirvâna.'

  'Venerable Nâgasena, those five qualities of a mountain peak which you said were inherent in Nirvâna,--which are they?'

  'As a mountain peak is very lofty, so also is Nirvâna very
  exalted. This is the first quality of a mountain peak inherent in
  Nirvâna. And again, O king, as a mountain peak is immoveable, so
  also is Nirvâna. This is the second quality of a mountain peak
  inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as a mountain peak is
  inaccessible, so also is Nirvâna inaccessible to all evil
  dispositions. This is the third quality of a mountain peak inherent
  in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as a mountain peak is a place where no
  plants can grow, so also is Nirvâna a condition in which no evil
  dispositions can grow. This is the fourth quality of a mountain peak
  inherent in Nirvâna. And again, O king, as a mountain peak is free
  alike from desire to please and from resentment, so also is Nirvâna.
  This is the fifth quality of a mountain peak inherent in Nirvâna.'

  'Very good, Nâgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.'

If you are a beginner student to Buddhism, what is important to understand is the words 'birth' & 'death' mean conceiving the thoughts: "I am born" & "I will die", as described in MN 140. Therefore, in Nibbana, there is no birth & no death because there is no view of "I am" or "self".

  The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these
  foundations, and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him
  he is called a sage at peace.’ So it was said. And with reference to
  what was this said?

  “Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I
  shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
  does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
  be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
  die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
  he yearn?

  MN 140


Tackling Addictions Directly VS Meditation I gathered some ideas from different previous replies, but I thought I'd synthesize these ideas into a question.

Is it (1) more sensible to cut down on addictive behaviours in order to liberate one's time for meditation, or (2) meditate despite addictive behaviours present as to cause their diminution.

In other words, will addictive behaviours diminish naturally from a meditation practice? Or, will diminishing addictions and procrastination and such enable meditation?

Personally, I feel my attempts at diminishing attachments have generated very few effortful and beneficial behaviours. It seems the other way around: meditation, exercise, reading all lead to more efficient time-spending.

If this is so, then it seems to imply diminishing all attachments is less beneficial than tackling gross aversion to effort. Any thoughts?

Thank you.

(Extra thought: can we say expending effort involves a process of becoming, given there's an investment producing effects? In this sense, effortful activities like those I mention have a karmic -- i.e. efficient -- effect, while detachment involves removing oneself from karma. For example, I could exercise and produce a good result, but by avoiding junk food I am avoiding negative consequences. Just a thought!)

The hindrence here is Sceptical doubt (vicikiccha), which is the cause of not taking on the right practice.
For the purpose of release: Not-knowing (right) is the cause of addiction, tanha, Eggmann.
By reminderless up-rooting of this very not-knowing (avijjā), there is the end of suffering, the end of grasping after this and that.
And how is the path for up-rooting this very root of suffering? Just this Noble eightfold path, with right view as it's for-runner.
And what is the prerequisite to develop right view?

Faith

Association with People of Integrity

Listening to the True Dhamma

Appropriate Attention

Practice in Accordance with the Dhamma

Not released now one might think: "I know, but..." In that case there there was the case of improper attention by not having had admirable association out of lack of devotion, out of lack of faith. In that case, if not willing to uproot this by approaching the Juwels in the right way, find access to them by lowering, by giving up, by seeking refuge, there is no way, no short cut that right view could be developed, right release be gained. For such as "knowing" and still doubt, such can not be.
That was why it was sad: "For the purpose of release: Not-knowing (right) is the cause of addiction, tanha, Eggmann."
And what is the cause, what is the reason for faith? Suffering, being confronted to give up, to seek for release, is the reason why one takes on faith.
For one havving gained right view, had attended proper, listened proper, seen and reminds the Dhamma, just then:

The Tree Pulls Itself Down
Craving and desire lead us to suffering. But if we contemplate, our contemplation leans out from craving. It contemplates craving, and it pulls on the craving, shakes it up, so that it goes away or lessens on its own.
It's like a tree. Does anyone tell it what to do? Does anyone give it hints? You can't tell it what to do. You can't make it do anything. But it leans over and pulls itself down. When you look at things in this way, that's Dhamma.

So focus on gaining right view, it's pre-requisites. For it is not pleasant to be sooner or later confronted with suffering, when sickness, death, lose of beloved, gain of pain... arises and one does not find the way to release, does not know, have not discerned, seen before, here and now.
Asking: Tackling Addictions Directly or Meditation:
Respect, Confidence and Patient as prerequisite means for release from addiction, when and before is effects come into be.
And what are the obstacles,
the Hindrances for devotion, for lowering, Individually?

Sensual Desire

Ill-will

Sloth and Torpor

Restlessness and Remorse

Doubt

May all beings find the way to end suffering by themselves with ease!

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


Buddhist funeral process I am seeking a proper guide on Buddhist funeral process in India.
What are the things needs to be taken care while performing the last Ceremony

With Metta

There is no universal Buddhist funeral but some customs have developed in Buddhist countries around Buddhism. Following may be of some help:

Ceremonies and Funeral Rites for the Dead
Funeral (Buddhism)
A Guide to a Proper Buddhist Funeral


Handling painful emotions My students' formal feedback about teaching makes me feel defeated. What would be a Buddhist view of this pain?

Most people have some story about who they are. They call this their identity, their role in life.

Think of this identity as a table with many legs. Each leg is one facet of their identity - for example, it maybe husband to the best wife, teacher to a loving children, son to wonderful parents, patriot of the greatest country, football fan of the greatest team, lover of the best food and so on.

We even call this the well rounded person, and we want to be very proud about the many interests.

Good. Now what happens when one of them is no longer true?

Since life is impermanent, any one of these legs can collapse.

When one loses one's parents to old age, one is no longer a son.
When one retires from one's job, one is no longer a teacher
When countries cease to exist, one is no longer a patriot or even a
citizen of the old country
When one's wife leaves, one is no longer a husband

and so on.

We can all admit, we have seen this happen, time and again.

Most people will watch one leg collapse and quickly prop up the table with a new interest. This is why some people take up dancing or something to fill their time when they get divorced. Or reminisce old stories about the good old times after they retire. This is their identity surviving always in new forms.

Meanwhile there is constant agony over the uncertainty about when one leg or the other is going to collapse, and they will rush to support it, and make sure it doesn't collapse.

When we aren't doing so well at work, we try to give the boss no excuse to be angry with us, is it not? We may never want to turn up late, or miss a day at work and so on. There is some fear here, and that is us trying to prop up that weak leg.

Now imagine we had no legs. Nothing to hold up. Then there'd be no fear, no pride, no ego, no sorrow. We can be whatever we want.

The nature of the mind is to produce thoughts, sometimes they can be pleasurable, and at other times they are painful.

When we identify with our thoughts, because they strengthen or weaken our identity - such as - "I am a very good teacher, or I am a sincere teacher, or I am a no good teacher" - whatever the story, positive or negative, this gives stickiness to the thoughts that relate to the story.

Then we can't let go of them. Even when they are hurting us, we hold on, obsessed with them, too attached to them, the thoughts are stuck to us.

Everything in this world is impermanent, yes?

Therefore the wisdom is not to derive our identity from such impermanent objects.

We aren't a teacher or a husband or a son or whatever - we are empty. We really are, don't take my word for it, or even the word of the Buddha, or the Buddhists, ask yourself. Were you born a teacher? Were you born a husband?

No, these things came into our lives at some point, and will leave our lives at some point. When we stop identifying with them, we are free, and our thoughts on them no longer matter.


What can be the remedy here? Whenever I go for meditation retreat(self-exploration or in group), my brain remains calm, body remains healthy, digestive system becomes good.

When I try to go for household life or even think about it, my tension increases, digestive system corrupts(whereas it remains better during retreat), can't maintain percept of not eating after midday  because of stomach. Morning workout (physical) makes me more lazy(sleepy), laziness decreases meditation. Metta-meditation makes me to worry about others whereas, if I don't do metta it, makes me feel like selfish?

Should I consult psychologist or should I go for monk-life?

How to stop worrying about others or why do I feel like worrying about others during metta?

Should I consult psychologist or should I go for monk-life?

If you are ready to be a monk and live by the Vinaya, by all mean do.

A householders life is not cut out for fasting for everyone. Even monks who are engaged in lot of activity find it difficult to fast afternoon. If you meditate for long hours fasting afternoon is not a problem, but when you get many worldly activities this becomes problematic.

I don't think this is something a psychologist can help but more to do with the amount or meditation you pratice.

  How to stop worrying about others or why do I feel like worrying about others during metta?

There are 4 Brahmavihara of which Metta is one. The objective of Metta meditation is to develop loving-kindness and benevolence and also break mental tendency to classify being as favourable and unfavourable hence reacting with craving and aversion.

In your case, if you are developing worrying thoughts due to the concern for others or their situation, the best is that you concentrate on Upekkha and later develop the other Brahmaviharas.


What do Buddhists say about illogical self sacrifice? I don't want to sound Vulcan, but I mean self sacrifice which is out of proportion, what do Buddhists say about it? So as an example, going on a dangerous hunger strike, in order that your well fed friend has another loaf of bread.

I got thinking about this via dying for the "one you love", but obviously that sort of thinking is off in Buddhism.

Here are three possible angles to look at it from:

A genuinely selfless action can be a wholesome act of generosity and compassion. But...
A sacrifice of any kind can be wholesome or unwholesome depending on the deep motivation. If the action is meant to manipulate or punish others (or even yourself), it will have bad results. Sometimes we are not aware of how we can have selfish motives for apparently selfless acts, so we have to be careful.
One of the "fetters" that binds a being to endless rounds of rebirths is attachment to "rites and rituals". So fasting as an attempt to propitiate fate or karma or God, or to achieve some kind of magical outcome, is useless. Prior to his enlightenment, the Buddha spent years starving himself thinking that that was the route to liberation from suffering. His motivation was pure, but he realized that it was pointless to destroy his body.


The meaning v of this phrase in Satipattana Sutta I want to know the proper meaning (a full breakdown) of what this phrase means in Satipanna Sutta. It's in pali.

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati. Samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati. ‘Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati. Evampi kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati.

Especially I want to know on this as well.

Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati.

And so they meditate observing an aspect of the body internally,
  externally, and both internally and externally.

  Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye
  kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati;

  They meditate observing the body as liable to originate, as liable to
  vanish, and as liable to both originate and vanish.

  samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā
  kāyasmiṃ viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati.

  Or mindfulness is established that the body exists, to the extent
  necessary for knowledge and mindfulness. They meditate independent,
  not grasping at anything in the world.

  ‘Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti. Yāvadeva
  ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke
  upādiyati.

  That’s how a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body.

  Evampi kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati.

This is according to suttacentral.net. See: https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/sujato
Under settings you can activate showing the Pāli.


Is luminous mind unconditioned and not impermanent? In AN1.51-52, we find a description of the luminous mind. The Pali version can be found here.

The description in 51-52 implies that it is pre-existing. It's just that the ordinary worldling doesn't discern that it's actually present. But the noble disciples discern that it's actually present.

"yathābhūtaṃ" means "in truth; in reality; in its real essence."

"pajānāti" means "knows clearly".

We know that Nibbana is not conditioned (sankhara) and not impermanent (anicca).

But from the description, it sounds like the luminous mind, which is pre-existing in both worldlings and noble disciples, is always there, just that it is obscured by incoming defilements (kilesa).

Does this mean that the luminous mind is also not conditioned (sankhara) and not impermanent (anicca)?

  “Pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. Tañca kho āgantukehi
  upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhaṃ. Taṃ assutavā puthujjano yathābhūtaṃ
  nappajānāti. Tasmā ‘assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhāvanā natthī’ti
  vadāmī”ti.

  “Pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. Tañca kho āgantukehi
  upakkilesehi vippamuttaṃ. Taṃ sutavā ariyasāvako yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.
  Tasmā ‘sutavato ariyasāvakassa cittabhāvanā atthī’ti vadāmī”ti.

  “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming
  defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern
  that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that—for the
  uninstructed run-of-the-mill person—there is no development of the
  mind.”

  “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming
  defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns
  that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that—for the
  well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—there is development of the
  mind.”

Actually, no. Because pabhassara-citta must arise. Because if pabhassara-citta will never arise, it can't be defiled by incoming defilements which will arise to defile it, too.

Citta, viññāṇa, mano are the synonym of each other in SN Nidānavagga, assutavasutta:

  “But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind(citta)’ and ‘mentality(mano)’ and
  ‘consciousness(viññāṇa)’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience
  revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be
  liberated from it.

So, pabhassara-citta is  conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca) by  SN Khandhavagga, Aniccasutta:

  consciousness is impermanent.

Therefore, paphassara-citta is included in one synonym of citta In abhidhamma, dhammasaṅgiṇī, kusalacittuppādakaṇṭa:

  The citta which is arising while the occation (that 1st wholsome citta
  is arising) means citta, mano, mānasa,    hadaya, paṇḍara (paphassara),   mano,  manāyatana,  manindriya,    viññāṇa, viññāṇa-khandha, and tajjā
  manoviññāṇadhātu — this is the citta which is arising while the occation.

  (Translated version is not correct, so I did not quote from that. I have to translate myself.)


The Four Great References (AN 4.180) This question refers to The Four Great References in  Mahāpadesa Sutta (AN 4.180).
In each case, it ends with:

If they’re not included in the discourses and not found in the texts on
monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is
not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened
Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by ...
If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on
monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is
the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened
Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by ...

So, why are there four great references and not one, if the criteria is the same for each of them?
What is the difference between the four great references?
Do they represent primacy or order of reliability? For e.g. is the first great reference more reliable than the second great reference?, is the second more reliable than the third? etc.
If the answer to the previous question is Yes, then does this imply that the traditional commentaries to the suttas by the Sangha is more reliable than the interpretation of a single monk, as suggested by this comment?

This translation (of DN 16) includes this footnote:

In the earlier edition of this work, mahapadesa was rendered as "great authorities." It is now known that the proper meaning of apadesa is not "authority," but "reference" or "source." Besides, from the passage it is clear that there are only two real "authorities" — the Discourses (Suttas) and the Discipline (Vinaya).

The "four" are of course,

Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak:

'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';
or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';
or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';
or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

So, why are there four great references and not one, if the criteria is the same for each of them?
Because they're four different sources from which someone might say they heard something?
Do they represent primacy or order of reliability?
No I read it as explicitly the opposite.
I think the message is that the witness or narrator (IOW any bikkhu after the Buddha's passing) shouldn't be believed unreservedly -- the message might have "been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder" -- so no matter what source they claim you should measure what they say against the Dhamma and the Discipline, the suttas and the vinaya.
then does this imply that the traditional commentaries to the suttas by the Sangha is more reliable than the interpretation of a single monk
Ha, well I think it's your responsibility to decide for yourself.
On the other hand you're not supposed to split the Sangha, and I think that if a lot of experts seem to disagree with my view then it's likely that I'm missing something -- it's not as if other people's commentaries and so on aren't worthwhile.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that you might not want to trust any one person (even a monk) unreservedly, perhaps especially if what they're teaching is unorthodox.
Even so I think that reasonable people might have different approaches -- this Religious Conservatism discussion starts with,

We need to be clear about what we mean by “a conservative/traditionalist perspective”. For some monasteries it means following the tradition as it has been handed down by their teachers. For others it is about trying to get as close to the intentions of the Buddha as possible. The Ajahn Chah monasteries in the UK - where, incidentally, I have lived - are closer to the former, whereas monasteries such as Bodhinyana are closer to the latter.


What percent of income do Buddhists give to temples? From the upaseka precepts:

  "He levies one sixth of people’s wealth as taxes."

I used to just think this was prosocial advice, but for much of Buddhism's history, it has been state supported. Paying taxes mean supporting state Buddhism. But Buddhism isn't state supported anymore and even when it was, those taxes paid for military and government bureaucracy in addition to Buddhist temples.

In Christianity, some sects have a policy of expecting 1/10 of income.

So, other than a rhetorical dodge (It depends!), do we have any modern examples of recommended dana as a percent of income, or failing that, numbers on what constitutes a fair contribution towards the support of organized religion in modern, western (US or European) countries?

From DN Book 3 8:265, Buddha said 25% is to be consumed, 50% is to be in investment/trading, 25% is to be in keep for retirement or emergency safe. This does not include donation reserve to answer your question but by doing justified modification of above dividing, 20% should go to donation if we have to calculate proportionally.


Are the positive qualities of enlightenment ultimate or conventional realities? Are the positive qualities of enlightenment ultimate or conventional realities?

These are

  permanence, bliss, personality, purity.

If they are ultimately the case, can they be directly seen?

Enlightened qualities are ultimate. One's mind is innately ultimate ie. enlightened.

A highly achieved buddhist practitioner often likens the enlightened mind with the clear blue sky.

Often clouds (defilements) obscure the clear blue sky and the clear sky cannot be seen. In other words, without the clouds, the clear blue sky (the ultimate) can be seen.


Does Buddhism endorse pacifism in times of injustice? How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices  like murder, rape, torture?

If we refer to Dhammapada 3, the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators?

Would a Buddha not support the actions of military forces -- who kill their opponents -- if their opponent's regime were involved in "wars of aggression" and mass murder of civilians, i.e. "crimes against humanity"?

How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like?

How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices like murder, rape, torture?

The Vinaya governs rules dealing with issues within the community of monks. The purpose of becoming a monk is to renounce worldly ties, hence it is not expected of a monk to be involved in serving justice.

A Buddhist layperson can get involved if is in a position serving justice. In such case one must do what is fair.

  If we refer to Dhammapada 3 the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators?

This was addressed to Ven. Thulla Tissa. The fault or perpetrator was Ven. Thulla Tissa.

  Would a Buddha not support the actions of ally forces that killed the Nazis, who killed thousands upon thousands jews, gypsies, mentally handicapped, blacks etc.?

Endorsing anything will break the Sila is not fit for a Buddhist. So this will not be endorsed by the Buddha or Sangha.

  How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like?

If one is in a position of the military, justice or politics one will inevitably have to take action which is decremental to oneself or which is unwholesome. What is unwholesome not endorsed but one has to do what is needed to be done for society to function. This involves:

dispensing justice
involvement in wars

Other religions may have a position about law, politics and wars, but Buddhism does not have such position as punitive action would have karmic consequences and these are conventions which change with time and society. Certain laws and politics which were considered just in medieval times are no longer considered just. The Dhamma Buddha perches transcend time and society so everyone can accept it at all times and societies.


Does "Connected Causes" mean the same thing as Dependent Origination? I prefer the phrase "Connected Causes" to Dependent Origination or the alternatives such as Dependent Arising, Dependent Co-arising and so on, I feel that it is more direct and understandable. But I am not sure if it means exactly the same thing? I do not see this phrase on this site.

Here is a quote from The Biography of Milarepa, I do not have that book anymore, but found this online:

"The clear perception of the Mind Unmodified, and the noble impulse to serve others, appear to be alike, but beware, and confuse them not.
"The spiritual boon which shineth on one as a resultant of Connected Causes, and merit temporal, which bringeth much of worldly goods, appear alike, but beware, and confuse them not."

In discussing things with people it helps to use the terminology they use. So even if 'connected causes' is a better way to explain 'dependent origination' - the latter has become a common phrase in English Buddhism. The former is rare.

Without the precise quote it is impossible to determine whether the two are precisely the same thing. However, if the source is a biography, I would think that the meaning is likely close enough within that context.

      edited in response to elaborated question:

In this case I would understand the phrase 'Connected Causes' as very simply all the causes that  create good circumstances (aka 'worldly good'). The sentence merely states that while it is great to experience the result of good karma, that doesn't mean you should rest on your laurels.

In other words: 'Connected Causes' is simply karma here, I think. And while the spiritual boon may seem the same thing as those great circumstances, it's not. For one thing: good circumstances are rarely used to good spiritual effect.


That "Electric Feel" body sensation during meditation Meditation skill level: greater than beginner, less than adept.

Before I can get to the Electric Feel, we need to come to a mutual understanding on how I get there.

I have a specific technique to my meditation that I have sown together from random scraps of multiple religions(taoism, buddhism, christianity(yes they meditate), Islam and new age stuff). Imagine my technique to be a pyramid that has many levels(plateaus). I must achieve reaching the first level before going to the next. If I am on the third level and stop doing something that was required to reach the first level, then I have to gone down to the first level again and must work my way up from there.

The first level is Breath... of course. 4 seconds in, and 4 seconds out. The attention is on breath. Continues until this process requires no counting of time and is automatic.

Second level is muscle relexation over then entire body. The attention is on the entire body in a state of rest. During the first and second levels one must shrug off all thoughts that are worldly worries or thoughts that are hindering your progress.

Third level is Electric Feel. I can feel what I would call an energy running circuits through my body. This sensation can be directed through intention: If I want to feel energy coming in through my head and go down my spine, it can happen.

Levels after 3 are theoretical. But I feel like I can feel my 'Asteral Body'.(when answering you may disregard anything about the Asteral Body if it has no correlation with Buddhism)

So is this sensation a normal one for meditation? How can I move past this sensation to deepen meditation? Are my 'levels' accurate to what Buddhism teaches? What level comes after the electric feel? Does Buddhism support the notion of an Asteral Body?

This feeling is Piti. It is also in sphere of the sensual world hence has the 3 marks of existence. It arises and passes away. You should try to look at it more and more closely until you see it. At some point this will also disappear and turn into either pain or a neutral feeling. When you get the neutral feeling you should be very careful as not to loose the balance of your mind as equanimity is easy in pain and pleasure but hard in this instance. If you examine closely this is also impermanent as you will see things arising and passing. If you see arising and passing of phenomena in each and every part of your body then you are experiencing bhanga-nana. You should see it in remote places in your body also like your earlobes.

This can result either due to Jhana or that through Vipassana where you have either suspended or eradicated (in case of Vipassana) some of you bad Karma which might give you birth in a lower realm for that stretch of time. (In Jhana there is a temporary suspension of the such rebirth linking karma. If you dies with your Jhana you are born in a higher existence.) This does not mean that you can keep them suspended always in Jhana or other periods where some old residual Karma giving you bad rebirth linking result will not surface in the future in the case of Vipassana. Through Vipassana you can eradicate all rebirth linking Karma starting from the lower realms and progressing to higher realm. When you have eliminated all rebirth linking Karma and mind comes to a state it does not acquire any new rebirth linking Karma then you will enter Nirvana. Even when you enter Nirvana you can still have non rebirth linking Karma. Also the present feeling are associated with Karma which you have done with attachment. (Interpretation as per my understanding according of Ledi Sayadaw linage.)

All being said don't get attached to it in any way nor wish for it to pass away.


Diagnose: Samatha practice led to an urge to contract PC muscle, and pleasant vibrations resulted During the last part of a concentration exercise (focusing eyes on a point between eyebrows) I felt a need to contract my Pubococcygeus muscle. During contraction I was feeling some vibration in my left wrist. What was that? It was nice vibration while my mind was clear.

DISCLAIMER: It isn't that such phenomenons don't occur during Buddhist meditation, but typically such bodily phenomenons are not emphasized in most Buddhist traditions, and thus Buddhists lack the vocabulary. Tibetan Tantra practice is an exception, but that's because it derives a lot of its vocabulary and practices from tantric yoga. The subtle body is viewed in Buddhism as personified impermanence.

From your description it appears to be a spontaneous Mula Bhandha. Like sneezing or coughing, spontaneous yogic postures are natural bodily occurrences, and are nothing to be wary of. They are triggered by conditions. For example, we sneeze in response to being in a room full of dust, similarly, when there are certain subtle energy manifestations in the body that are in need of correction, the body makes use of such locks or yoga mudras.

Image source: http://sequencewiz.org/2014/09/10/mula-bandha/

Without knowing more details about the quality and nature of vibration you felt, it would be hard to say for sure, but it sounds like Piti / Sukha. The clear mind you mention is likely the mind born of seclusion.

You can read more about Jhana factors by searching the web, but here's a helpful summary. Also see a similar question on this site.

I'd recommend gaining reasonable perfection in either Hatha Yoga meditation, or in Buddhist meditation. Unless you have strong reasons for doing so, dabbling with both at the same time can be unproductive.


Beginner's Buddhist Course Syllabus By Ancient Pali Canon (Ganthadhura And Vipassanādhura) How to learn dhamma as Māhāvihāra Theravāda Buddhists?

How Māhāvihāra Theravāda Buddhists learn kammaṭhāna and dhamma for over 2600 years?

This is through teacher and student lineages through though the years some changes have occurred.

Early on the Dhamma was also preserved this way through oral tradition handed down from teacher to pupil.

One of the best preserved lineages is that handed down from Ledi Sayadaw which has teachers like: Saya Gyi U Ba Khin, S. N. Goenka. It is believed that this is the exact teaching transmitted to Burma through Sona and Uttara. This probably would have the best resemblance to that was taught at Māhāvihāra early on.


Is Nirvana the goal, for Zen and Theravada? What is the main goal for Theravada Buddhism and Zen Buddhism? Is it Nirvana for both or is there any additional differences?

Can the answer be detailed because this is an assignment and I am trying to be as detailed as possible. Thanks so much!

There is no goal in Zen. To have a goal is spin the wheel of samsara. Zen is all about getting to the basics, which are beyond words and concepts. I should know I have been practicing Zen for seventeen years and I am still a beginner.


What should I tell other people about giving money to a Beggar? This question asks whether, what, or how to tell other people about giving money to a beggar.

Scenario

I was seated inside the bus today and I saw a man begging for while selling some incense sticks boxes and he was wearing a mask for an unknown reason. Firstly it occurred to me whether it's worthwhile to donate some amount to him. Them it occurred that drop by drop only the pot will be filled.

So I decided to donate some and I was suppose to give the bus ticket money to the conductor. I had some hundred notes and a 20 rupee note. I was thinking whether to give a 100 rupee note to the beggar at first and then I thought of donating the 20 rupee to the beggar and pay the conductor with a 100 rupee so that I could have change.

Both the beggar and the conductor arrived near my seat and I was having both notes on my hand. (I was holding the phone from the other hand). I tried to give the 20 ripped to the beggar and the conductor unknowingly reached his hand to the 20 rupee note and asked where I was going to. I was about confused on what to do and then I settled my mind thinking "It's fine. Let the beggar have the 100 and let him do something beneficial with it". After saying where I was going I donated the 100 rupee to the beggar. This incident happened very fast. And at the instance I let go of the typical craving for the small 100 rupee note so that I could fulfill the charity purely.

And after that the conductor told me not to give that sort of large amount to them. I smiled and, unshaken in my intention, I continued on the journey.

Question

My question is this:
I'm not sure whether the beggar was virtuous or not; but I know for a fact that only drop by drop a pot can be fulfilled. So the question is, if this sort of a situation were to arise another time, should I instruct the other person (in this case the conductor) on what the intention and the situation was, or just shut up and mind my business?

May the Triple Gem bless you.

The Buddha has mentioned that it is the givers qualities that matters most in giving. He says for example that if he were to receive something from Ven. Sariputta, that would not be as meritorious as if he gave the same thing to Ven. Sariputta.

So, if you are a person with Arya qualities, as long as your giving is also Arya, the effects will be much greater than that dictated by the receivers qualities.

Arya giving is letting go at a distance.


Which is a good book to read about history of Buddhism? I'd like to read about the history of Buddhism. Which book or books would you recommend?

Buddhism: Its History and Literature, by T.W. Rhys Davids
Buddhist India, by T.W. Rhys Davids
Early Buddhist Monachism (600 B.C. - 100 B.C.), by Sukumar Dutt
History of Buddhism in Ceylon: The Anurādhapura Period, 3rd Century BC – 10th Century AC, by Walpola Rahula
History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era, by Étienne Lamotte
The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction, by Richard H. Robinson
The History of Buddhist Thought, by Edward J. Thomas
Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo: (Second Edition), by Richard F. Gombrich
Indian Buddhism (A.K Warder),
History of Indian Buddhism (Hirakawa Akira),
How Buddhism Began (Gombrich).
The Birth of Insight (Erik Braun).
The Origin of Buddhist Meditation (Alexander Wynne),
Buddha and Buddhist Synods in India and Abroad (Amarnath Thakur).
Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (Gregory Schopen).

There is a more of such books at http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/


Buddhism and the Diet Practices view from other religion Since ever i have the half vegetarian diet practices, i have problem below with the society especially with the close friends.
Ques: How to handle the scenario below or how to answer them to make them comfort/understand base on Buddhism or logic. Well, Buddhism is base on logic right?

Plants also has consciousness, and then why do you eat it? -> Hope someone has strong biological knowledge background also able to answer this? Does plant has consciousness? If really yes, how do we handle it?

Some other religions follower may disagree/dis-comfort/against when i avoid meat and we cant enjoy the common meal or so call "good food". Feedback from them is diet should be balance or simply the Bible or Quran written so they allow to eat it? I felt i am against their God's will. The tough part is when my partner is inviting me to Christ, they will pray for thankfulness for the food. I just can't do it to pray together especially when eating those meat like Sushi with a lot of eggs on top, it has a lot lives inside.

Sometime when i try to explain those animal or fish killed alive is very crude too. i.e. Lobster and it will scream when we boiled it alive. Lobster is best to be boiled alive to serve as food. And then, i will like start losing a friend because when they know the truth and most of the time truth doesn't bring happiness. I know my mistake is the choice of words when explaining about diet. Any guide for this specific topic?

Whether plants have consciouness or to what extent doesn't obviate the fact that persons need sustenance to grow etc. There can be moderation in consumption however, & nonwaste of foodstuffs, lumber etc, which too is efficient from resource utilisation standpoints. Plants do react to light & water & wind etc, yet typically plants are described as nonconscious by current western science, & don't have neural systems, so, sort of depends on how consciousness & volition are being defined.
Consuming animal flesh is perceived as ok by them, so if sharing dinner etc with them such menu items would be reasonably expected. They are being friendly & generous in their way, & it's nice of them to share their time & their resources. If persons select to notconsume animal flesh for whatever reason, good friends might make allowance for that and have some nice things to eat other than animal flesh: bread, potatoes, beans, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. So maybe good to appreciatively consume those items & forego discussions re what the hosts are consuming. They will observe the example of someone notconsuming the animal flesh. And consuming some lobster from a can & which would otherwise be discarded is different from participation of obtaining/ demise of live lobsters. And they may offer thanks for having food & ok health etc, which seems reasonable to observe, and less so thanking for factory farms etc. And to some extent nutritional considerations may be valid. Moderation & nonwaste, & noncontribution(even indirectly) to demise of living things is generally good. To gently show is different from causing sadness or distress to them by comments that they don't understand, and activies which on their part were kindly intentioned. Maybe sidestep such situations is generally good, and each situation may vary.
Nonparticpation in the demise of things, and of such venues, shows by example: and if specifically asked, perhaps could offer a brief explanation, & if presented nicely, might have more good result than more emphatic responses. Good friends would generally be respectful of views differing from their own, so maybe try and use gentle words if commenting on such things, or if replying to a sincere request for information. And perhaps even gentler & briefer if such topic might arise during lunch or at dinner etc.


Swapping around the three Jewels The Buddha stated in SN 6.2 that he doesn't have a teacher but instead look up to the Dhamma, and in MN22 he states:

  Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati
  seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find
  anything of which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone
  is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is
  untraceable here and now.

If the Buddha pointed more to Dhammaism than Buddhism, is taking refuge in the order of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha - placing the messanger in the position of the message - a mistake along the lines of idolatry?

This is the way my teachers have explained it:

The Buddha is like a Doctor on who we rely to correctly diagnose our condition and to prescribe a treatment.
The Dharma is like the actual medicine and is thus referred to the supreme jewel or true jewel.
The Sangha is like the nurses who aid us in our treatment and recovery.

Just as we take refuge in our Doctors, Medications and Nurses when we become sick just so we should take refuge in the Buddhas, Dharma, and Sangha to shelter us from the sicknesses of samsara.

That said, the Dharma jewel is considered the Supreme Jewel because it is the actual antidote to our suffering. And we must choose to take our medication. The Buddha cannot force us to take our medicine nor can the Sangha. We must choose to listen to the Doctor's advice and take the actual antidote and listen to the Nurses as they help us take the medicine and recover.


How to concentrate to suppress hindrances? I heard one needs concentration to abandon the hindrances -- however to have strong concentration, you need to have [already] abandoned hindrances, so that nothing can stop your focus. Which one is it? How do I abandon the hindrances: one hindrance at a time or all together?

Kusala means  minds that arise to abandon chance to arise of akusala-minds. While kusala arising, akusala-minds can't not arise ( just in the same person).

3 sikkha = adhisila-kusala-training, adhicitta-kusala-training (concentration meditation), and adhipanna-kusala-training.

So, the practitioner practices adhisila-kusala to abandon a chance of  akusala arising that form action/speech, practices adhicitta for just  some other akusala arising--such as beauty-attachment (akusala) by asubha-adhicittasikkha, etc, and practices adhipanna for whole akusala arising--11 khandha such as the past khandha, etc.

While whatever sikkha arising, no hindrances, no akusala arising.


Can a girl & a boy be friends I didn't use to have much boys as friends but with time I made several boy friends from which some were really close. I want to know what has Lord Buddha chanted about a girl & a boy being friends?  Will it be something bad when I get married?

If you are not married, the Buddha said to look at opposite sex friends like brother & sister:

  'Come now, monks: with regard to women who are old enough to be your
  mother, establish the attitude you would have toward your mother. With
  regard to women who are old enough to be your sister, establish the
  attitude you'd have toward a sister. With regard to women who are
  young enough to be your daughter, establish the attitude you'd have
  toward a daughter.'

  SN 35.127

If a person wishes to get married, the Buddha taught a suitable partner has the same life goals & attitudes; particularly living according the five precepts:

  Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present time but also in the future, they should have
  the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity and
  the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this
  present time but also in the future.

  AN 4.55

  Householders, there are these four ways of living together. What four? A male wretch lives together with a female wretch; a male wretch lives together with a female goddess; a male god lives together with a female wretch; a male god lives together with a female goddess.

  AN 4.53

  When both husband and wife are endowed with faith, charitable and self-controlled, living their lives righteously, addressing each other
  with pleasant words, Then many benefits accrue to them and they dwell
  at ease.

  AN 4.53 & AN 4.55

If one or both people had many sexual partners before they get married and do not respect the precept of sexual fidelity then, as the Buddha taught above in AN 4.53 & AN 4.55, their marriage will most likely (but not always) have problems. The Buddha particularly emphasised sexual misconduct should be avoided by and towards women, as follows:

  242. Unchastity is the taint in a woman.

  242. In a woman, misconduct is an impurity.

  Dhammapada


Vajrayana Buddhism relies on a teacher-pupil relationship. What in tradition or the literature explains how to find the appropriate teacher? Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book. Many techniques are also commonly said to be secret, but some Vajrayana teachers have responded that secrecy itself is not important and only a side-effect of the reality that the techniques have no validity outside the teacher-student lineage.
  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana#Esoteric_transmission)

But in my travels through the Buddhist landscape, I find that teachers are human: some good, some mediocre.  How do I find the right teacher?  Are there tests that the student can apply to the teacher?

"The Words of My Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche has a chapter (Ch. 6) on how to choose, test and follow a "spiritual friend" (teacher):

pure, never having contravened any of the commitments or prohibitions (Pratimoksha, Bodhisattva's Vow, Secret Vows of Secret Mantrayana)
unstained by negative emotions
learned, not lacking in knowledge of sutras, tantras and shastras
heart suffused with compassion, loves each being like his only child
well-versed in vast array of rituals and ceremonies
not merely verbal but by putting the meaning of teaching into practice has actualized in himself the achievements of riddance and realization
generous, completely free of attachments
language should be pleasant
teaches each according to person's needs
acts in accordance with what he teaches

Teachers to avoid:

Like a millstone made of wool (high lamas by birth but have not studied and practiced seriously enough for the above qualities to arise)
Like the frog that lived in a well (with very limited exposure to true depth and breadth of Practice, having never seen a genuine spiritual master)
Mad guides (loose in discipline, strong in emotions, overemphasizing the esoteric and transcendental)
Blind guides (don't know what they are talking about)

"Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa has several pages (in Ch.5) on fully qualified masters vs. false teachers:

(repeats most of the above and adds the following)

Good teacher must have few activities, exclusively preoccupied with Dharma
His presence has transforming effect, inspiring all who meet him to seek for liberation
Must have an unconfined view, having realized the equality of nirvana and samsara
Having direct experience of the above, he is the source of his own freedom
Has been ripened by empowerments that came down to him in an uninterrupted lineage.


Where does it say that venerable Moggallana got lost in space? I've heard a story about venerable Moggallana (after he became enlightened). Moggallana, the left chief disciple of the Buddha, got lost in space when he tried to find the limits of the universe. Then when he was about to give up on life, the Buddha sent his aura(a beam of light) to show venerable Moggallana the way back to earth. Anyone has a reference to this story?

It is just a fable. It is not come from the ancient theravada pali cannon, both tipitaka and commentary. Because in Thailand we have many translated pali cannons, included those both, but no one found this fable in any cannon.

However, it maybe derived from SN Sagāthavagga, rohitassasutta, and KN Jātaka, javanahaṅsajātaka's commentary, which bodhisatta had helped the past life of moggallana.


The Proces of arising and passing away How can you define the experience of the proces (or the flow) of raising and passing away of all conditioned things?

as you meditate, one of knowledge reveals to you is consciousness (vinnana) can only take place in one thing at a time, tho it rises and falls in one of the other 4 skanda very quickly.    As you pay attention, when you are aware of a thought (could be anything that is not about 5 sensual pleasures or anger) and dwell in it, (that's a power of nandi) you let go of nundi and consciousness raises back in breathing (form), old thought disappeared.  only this much, one recognizes the raise and fall of name-form.   What other dharma reveals in the process?  you would see the feeling of "self" does not disappear along with disappearing thought.  so you know and see for yourself that a thought isn't you.  this is first clear vision of anatta or non-self.  the ultimate goal is to see of non-self in consciousness.  consciousness is the final burden.


What does "developed in discernment" mean? From the Lonaphala Sutta:

  Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

What developed in body and developed in mind means, is elaborated in MN36:

  "And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the
  case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

What being developed in virtue (sila) means, is covered by the Five Precepts (and also the Eight Precepts and Ten Precepts), Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood. These links provide more info on these.

However, what does "developed in discernment" mean?

Please also provide references from the scriptures.

The word translated "developed in discernment" is bhāvitapañño, i.e. increased or developed pañña.

The dictionary entry for pañña says,

  of wisdom, endowed with knowledge or insight, possessed of the highest cognition

The dictionary definition lists a lot of places where it's used in various compounds, (possibly describing various types of wisdom or insight) -- including the bhāvita compound, which is used in for example SN 35.127 (in summary, immune to sexual desire, and guarding the senses) and AN 10.24 (in summary, immune to various unwholesome mental factors).

I'd say these describe the effect of wisdom rather than describing the object of wisdom -- but, that's not surprising because what it's describing is "developed wisdom" i.e. the effect of having perfected wisdom.

I guess you'd have to look at other places pañña is used by itself (to find a description of pañña itself), and/or other pañña compounds (for descriptions of the various types of pañña).1

Wikipedia says it means "insight into the three characteristics": quoting Gombrich and others.

It's one of the several perfections (i.e. virtues which can be "perfected" or completed).

1 Not easy to summarise:

A search of SuttaCentral returns 500 results -- many from the Abhidamma and so on.
AN 8.2 describes 8 different types of discernment (which may confirm my theory that there are many different types or aspects of wisdom, that's it's not a term with a narrow meaning)
Pañña is an entire branch of the Threefold Training, so I expect it includes right view and right intention


Would a world full of good Buddhists seeking enlightenment would never have developed technology? If realizing the true nature of mind is the ultimate goal that drives us to enlightenment, constant blizz and the end of suffering, what would be the interest of developing technology?

Technology makes life easier and helps us live longer, but why would this be of benefit if happiness comes from within ourselves regardless of the life conditions surrounding us?

To put the question within a context, imagine a different setting from that of today. Go back in the past to a point far away from the industrial evolution and the invention of complex machinery. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense if we ask the question within today's context given that we live in an era of great technological advancement. There is no interest on going back (or at least I think so).

Technology has driven many advances that have considerably improved our daily life, but at the same time it is technology that has driven a society of consumerism. Besides, technological development comes from people who are "thirsty" of knowledge, the main root of dukkha (one of those words difficult to translate, but that it is often translated as "suffering"). So the main root of technology may be also the main root of suffering.

This question arises from a personal thought: If the humanity had been composed of good Buddhists seeking enlightenment from the "beginning of intelligent human kind", we would still be living a simple life in the jungle and perfectly happy as happiness is within ourselves and should not be conditioned by the outer world. All of this without great technological advancements.

The minimum standard of a good Buddhist would be someone who has taken refuge in the triple gem and keeps to the 5 precepts. Such a person wouldn't necessarily lack enthusiasm to develop technology.


Animals and humans in Science vs. Buddhism About the doctrine of the 31 realms of existence. I have a few questions, because science, especially the theory of evolution, makes a good argument for categorizing humans as animals.

Is this list of 31 realms static or can single realms vanish? Because due to science we know that this earth won't last forever. This would mean, that there are no animals or humans anymore, unless a similar species lives on another planet somewhere in this universe (which is very, very, very unlikely if you consider the set of condition it took of several billion years to evolve humans).
The theory of evolution proofs, that humans have evolved from animals and just use different techniques for surviving as every other species as well. So knowing that there was a time of transition, where there only existed primordial human beings, how could you at that time say if it was a human or an animal? How can you cross that line between one species (humans) and every other one? Because it is sure, that in the next few 100.000 years humans will have evolved to a totally different species according to the conditions in the environment.

So how should you understand this classification of beings. Is it just a provisional and time-dependent concept? Or is it only related to the degree of suffering, which predominate each realm?

I know on this topic are already many questions. But none of these related to this particular question. So please don't tag as duplicate.

Some Buddhists regard the realms of existence as psychological states of people. For example, if you are moral & humane, you have a 'human' existence. If you act impulsively, without self-control, without reasoned reflection, & particularly without moral conscience & with violence, your state of mind is like an 'animal'.

The following quotes from the scriptures support this view. Particularly, the quote at the bottom states an 'animal', by realising the Four Noble Truths, can be reborn as 'human', such as occurred to Angulimala  (the former mass murderer who became a fully enlightened monk), as shown in the video link at the bottom.

  Monks, these two bright qualities guard the world. Which two?
  Conscience & concern. If these two bright qualities did not guard the
  world, there would be no recognition of 'mother' here, no recognition
  of 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,' 'teacher's wife,' or 'wife of
  those who deserve respect.' The world would be immersed in
  promiscuity, like rams with goats, roosters with pigs or dogs with
  jackals. But because these two bright qualities guard the world, there
  is recognition of 'mother,' 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,'
  'teacher's wife,' & 'wife of those who deserve respect.'"

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.009.than.html

~~~~

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in
  Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time
  a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms
  round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds
  of bestial topics (tiracchānakathaṃ) of conversation: conversation
  about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles;
  food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives;
  vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes;
  the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of
  diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether
  things exist or not.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.069.than.html

~~~~

  Few are the beings who, on passing away from the animal realm, are
  reborn among human beings or gods. But far more numerous are reborn is
  hell. For what reason? They have not seen the Four Noble Truths.

  SN 56.123 (no link)

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i49oX1Shxf4


Why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism)? In SN 24.5, the Lord Buddha criticized the following doctrine called "natthikavādaṃ":

  There is no benefit in giving, sacrifice or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There is not this world or the
  other world. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are
  reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well
  attained and practiced, and who describes this world and the other
  world after realizing it with their own insight.

  This person is made up of the four primary elements. When they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass of
  earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass
  of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with the main
  mass of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with the main
  mass of air.

  The faculties are transferred to space. Four men with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to the cemetery. The
  bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes.
  Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms a positive
  teaching (atthikavādaṃ) it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the
  foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up and don’t exist after death.

According to SN 24.5, why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (the doctrine of disbelief)?

The answer is present in the same sutta:

  “When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the
  view arises: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. …
  Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when
  their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’ When feeling …
  perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping
  consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises:
  ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. … Both the
  foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’

In other words when self identification with forms,feelings,perception,consciousness and/or volitional formations occur such a view as highlighted by you also occurs.

I think the the wrong view of moral nihilism gets generated when we say that every self ceases to exist after death(i.e body and self are same) or that every self lives for eternity(i.e body and self are different). In both the case following holds true :

  ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no
  fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are
  no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously.
  And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced,
  and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own
  insight. This person is made up of the four primary elements. When
  they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the main
  mass of earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the
  main mass of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with
  the main mass of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with
  the main mass of air. The faculties are transferred to space. Four men
  with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to
  the cemetery. The bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the
  gods end in ashes. Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms
  a positive teaching it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the
  foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and don’t exist after death’?”

The truth there is that there is no permanent , unchanging self.  What is happening is Clinging to forms,feelings,perceptions,consciousness and/or volitional formations. These Clingings are not unconditional. Craving gives rise to clinging. This is the midddle way. Depending upon conditions clinging ceases. Depending upon conditions clinging arises. This is the Dhamma. To those who believe in Self it would appear Self arises and ceases which is self contradictory as self is permanent and unchanging. Morality based upon the assumption that Self and body are the same results in moral nihilism. Morality based upon assumption that Self and body are different leads to moral nihilism.

EDIT: I have found another Sutta(saṃyuktāgama 297) to support my answer.
Following quote illustrates the point I have been trying to make:

  “What is the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas? It is this:
  Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises.
  That is to say: Conditioned by ignorance, activities arise; because of
  activities, consciousness arises, and so on …, and thus arises this
  whole mass of suffering.

  “Regarding the statement conditioned by birth, aging-and-death arises,
  someone may ask: Who is it that ages-and-dies? To whom does
  aging-and-death belong?

  “And he may answer: It is the self that ages-and-dies. Aging-and-death
  belongs to the self; aging-and-death is the self.

  “To say that soul is the same thing as body, or to say that soul is
  one thing and body another, these have the same meaning, though they
  are expressed differently. For one who has the view which says that
  soul is the same thing as body, there is no point in the noble life.
  And for one who has the other view which says that soul is one thing
  and body another, there is also no point in the noble life. Following
  neither of these two extremes, the mind should move rightly toward the
  Middle Way.