Difference between Buddhism and Aristotelian "middle-way"? This thought occurred to me after reading the following question and top answer:
How to refute the idea that Buddhism might be actually "too extreme"?

The questioner thinks the logical conclusion of Buddhism is to abandon all worldly goods, including the family, resulting in the elimination of the human race.

  Let's say if this is the appropriate thing to do, and everybody in the
  world does that, then the world, in 100 years or 200 years, will not
  have human beings any more (because if no marriage and no children,
  then there will be no new life on earth, while the existing people
  pass away). I can't say that it will be "good" if on earth, there is
  no more human beings, but lions, wolves, foxes, rabbits, and other
  animals remain on earth.

The answerer stated this is taking Buddhism to the extreme, and rather Buddhism is to avoid extremes and to take the middle path.

  Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? No, he taught middle-way: by
  looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others
  we look after ourselves.

However, this is exactly what Aristotle said in his definition of virtue.  He defines virtue as the mean between extremes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)#Aristotle

  His constant phrase is, "… is the Middle state between …". His
  psychology of the soul and its virtues is based on the golden mean
  between the extremes

Is there any essential difference between Aristotle's definition of virtue and what Buddhism teaches?  It seems there is only a difference in details, how specifically Buddhism teaches to seek the middle way, but the overarching principle is the same.  Or are there extremes in Buddhism's teaching?

However, this is exactly what Aristotle said in his definition of virtue.

Yes the ancient Greeks did have "nothing in excess" as part of their cultural heritage.

Buddhists might agree with some of the other 'wise' sayings on the page linked above, especially for example, "You should not desire the impossible".

But the ethics are not the same. Greek ethics are typically about being a good citizen, for example:

A "middle way" between cowardice and recklessness, so, being prudent and brave as a soldier
Being a just (justice) member of the jury
Being a political hero; etc.

The Greeks are into aesthetics too: they talk about "the beautiful".

  Is there any essential difference between Aristotle's definition of virtue and what Buddhism teaches?

You would do yourself a disservice to assume that, having read Aristotle, you have a handle on Buddhist Dhamma too.

Some essential differences include that they don't have the same goal, nor the same method/mechanism, not at all the same logic, nor the same experimental proof, nor the same practitioners.

  Or are there extremes in Buddhism's teaching?

Yes, I think there are many; so many that I cannot hope to pick "the best" example, so let me instead pick one example more-or-less at random.

The Itivuttaka starts with, "This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Abandon one quality, monks, and I guarantee you non-return. Which one quality? Abandon greed as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return.""

In several ways, this is an "extreme":

It's said by "the Blessed One"
It's "abandon" one quality, not "see if you can't try to live without it quite a lot  of the time"
It's "I guarantee you", not "I'm pretty sure"
It's "greed", not "thinking about it"
It's "non-return", not "not too much of a return"

I'm not sure of the definition of the "middle way" you quoted (not sure whether it's a good definition: maybe you're quoting out of context).

Some more canonical definitions of the Buddhist "middle way" are as follows:

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion:

  "There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

  "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

Cutting Off the Causes of Suffering:

  The Buddha calls this path the middle way (majjhima patipada). It is the middle way because it steers clear of two extremes, two misguided attempts to gain release from suffering. One is the extreme of indulgence in sense pleasures, the attempt to extinguish dissatisfaction by gratifying desire. This approach gives pleasure, but the enjoyment won is gross, transitory, and devoid of deep contentment. The Buddha recognized that sensual desire can exercise a tight grip over the minds of human beings, and he was keenly aware of how ardently attached people become to the pleasures of the senses. But he also knew that this pleasure is far inferior to the happiness that arises from renunciation, and therefore he repeatedly taught that the way to the Ultimate eventually requires the relinquishment of sensual desire. Thus the Buddha describes the indulgence in sense pleasures as "low, common, worldly, ignoble, not leading to the goal."

  The other extreme is the practice of self-mortification, the attempt to gain liberation by afflicting the body. This approach may stem from a genuine aspiration for deliverance, but it works within the compass of a wrong assumption that renders the energy expended barren of results. The error is taking the body to be the cause of bondage, when the real source of trouble lies in the mind — the mind obsessed by greed, aversion, and delusion. To rid the mind of these defilements the affliction of the body is not only useless but self-defeating, for it is the impairment of a necessary instrument. Thus the Buddha describes this second extreme as "painful, ignoble, not leading to the goal."[2]

  Aloof from these two extreme approaches is the Noble Eightfold Path, called the middle way, not in the sense that it effects a compromise between the extremes, but in the sense that it transcends them both by avoiding the errors that each involves. The path avoids the extreme of sense indulgence by its recognition of the futility of desire and its stress on renunciation. Desire and sensuality, far from being means to happiness, are springs of suffering to be abandoned as the requisite of deliverance. But the practice of renunciation does not entail the tormenting of the body. It consists in mental training, and for this the body must be fit, a sturdy support for the inward work. Thus the body is to be looked after well, kept in good health, while the mental faculties are trained to generate the liberating wisdom. That is the middle way, the Noble Eightfold Path, which "gives rise to vision, gives rise to knowledge, and leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana."

Glossary

  paṭipadā: Road, path, way; the means of reaching a goal or destination. The "Middle way" (majjhima-paṭipadā) taught by the Buddha; the path of practice described in the fourth noble truth (dukkhanirodhagāminī-paṭīpadā).

Wikipedia adds that "In Mahayana Buddhism, the Middle Way refers to the insight into emptiness that transcends opposite statements about existence." Wikipedia's footnote to this sentence references the Kaccayanagotta Sutta.


Should I address myself as I/my or you/your to remind myself of non-self? A friend asked this mind-bending question on social media:

  when you’re talking to yourself in your head (or out loud) do you refer to yourself as we, I, you, or they/she/he/other pronoun?

This got me thinking that the difference between addressing myself as "I" and "you" seems trivial but really has some implications when it comes to ego, self, non-self and letting go.

So I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on whether the Dhamma implies we should "talk to ourselves" in certain ways?

E.g. Should I tell myself

  I forgive that person, I will follow the eight-fold path, I will meditate for 20 minutes

or

  You forgive that person, you will follow the eight-fold path, you will meditate for 20 minutes

Alternately, do you think we should really try to use the third-person for addressing ourselves? I know that some Buddhists like to say things like "the body" rather than "your body" or "my body", but it seems like saying "Jer will meditate for 20 minutes" is too weird, but if that's the answer you think is right I'm interested in your thinking too :)

Here's an example answer that shows what I am asking with this question, but I don't know if it's very wise or not, so obviously still looking for perspectives of others.

When I address myself in the first person, I implicitly emphasize my identity, and stay wrapped up in subjectivity.

When I address myself in the second person, I confess that my consciousness is separate from my identity, I gain a more objective position in relation to my thoughts, feelings and experiences.

Try rather to catch urself in the process of thinking about yourself, that is thinking.

If one grouped all thoughts and ideas into one cathegory and called it all "thinking" one could see that the idea of self etc it is merely an idea, a concept that exists in the thinking faculty, just like forms and colors exist when there is seeing, so does ideas of self when there is thinking.

The Buddha was perfect in conduct, that implies verbal conduct too. He talk very well and used personal pronounce perfectly too, he would not have talked in english but for translations they put enlighs I, Me and etc. So avoiding words is probably not something useful to adapt and was never recommended by the Buddha afaik. if anything i heard a good disciple is skilled in words and their use, so probably studying linguistics and general semantics is a better practice.


Where do “new” humans come from? If all of us are re-incarnations of prior human beings, how do we account for the growing population? Where do “new” humans come from?

We are not necessarily re-incarnations of prior human beings. There are 31 planes of existence in Buddhism. So the  present human beings could result from any of the 26 planes out of 31 planes of existence(except 5 non-returner Bhrama realms) which consist of unaccountably large number of beings. For example, imagine the number of beings living in  Animals realm (tiracchana yoni).


Does the Buddha like dogs? I am not a buddhist but I have a friend who is. He dislikes dogs and I have questioned him as to whether he is a true Buddhist. I believe that the Buddha is peaceful and nature loving, and so would love dogs.

The Buddha taught 'birth' with an 'animal' state of mind is a state of woe (beset by chronic suffering) or lower state of 'existence' (being).

The Lokapala Sutta states that people who do not have moral shame (human conscience) and fear of wrongdoing (compassion for self & others) will behave like dogs & thus not have the bright principles that protect, respect & honor the world.

The Kukkuravatika Sutta explains people behaving like dogs will lead those people to the company of dogs; but if it does not, it will lead to hell. This is why we can observe in society like-minded immoral people who create cliques where they keep eachother's company but, eventually, they turn on each other.

For example, recently my neighbour's dog killed their pet cat. While pet dogs & cats can live harmoniously & friendly with each other, if the dog or cat is emotional, it will act without conscience & concern for the other pet. This is similar to people who are killed by their pet lion, snake or crocodile who they mistakenly thought was loyal & tame.

Dogs can be very loyal to their human masters that feed them but they also bark at strangers & fight a lot, particularly about sex & territory.

In Western countries, dogs are generally desexed thus do not have normal sex lives. However, in non-Western countries, this does not generally occur and one can witness male dogs literally bite each other to shreds over sex during the mating season.

Many people also behave like this, such as politicians & those in government, who tear each other to shreds, stab each other in the back & start horrible wars merely for the purpose of (imperialistic) territory, power & empire building.

Thus, the Buddha may have shown unconditional love to all living creatures but this does not mean he encouraged all of their behaviours.


The One With the Brahmin Heckler Does there exist such a sutta in which a brahmin pays a visit to the Buddha at his dwelling at Jeta's Grove with the sole intent to heckle, only to be met with silence and then brought to his senses when he asks, "Why aren't you delivering your sermon? I would like to hear it." The Buddha tells him that only anger and rage are in his mind and that if he can distance himself from all the anguish, hurt, and jealousy, he will deliver a sermon to him. The brahmin sees that the Buddha saw through him and repents.
This is a story from the fourth book of the Korean version of the Saṃyutta Nikāya called 별역잡아함경. From what I gather, the suttas do not correspond one-for-one with the Saṃyutta Nikāya, and for the life of me, I cannot find the above story in any English version available online. Does such a story exist in the Saṃyutta Nikāya or anywhere else in the Pāli Canon, for that matter? Or is it only in the Korean edition for some reason? If it helps, the brahmin's name is 반려(返淚), but of course it's impossible to figure out what the original Pāli name is.

From SN 7.16 - Paccanīka Sutta:

At S›vatthı. Now on that occasion a brahmin named Paccanıkas›ta, Relisher of Contradiction, was residing at S›vatthı. Then it occurred to the brahmin Paccanıkas›ta: “Let me approach the ascetic Gotama and contradict whatever he says.” Now on that occasion the Blessed One was walking back and forth in the open. Then the brahmin Paccanıkas›ta approached the Blessed One and said to him while he was walking back and forth: “Speak Dhamma, ascetic!”

[The Blessed One:]
693 “Well-spoken counsel is hard to understand By one who relishes contradiction, By one with a corrupt mind <386> Who is engrossed in aggression.
694 “But if one has removed aggression And the distrust of one’s heart, If one has cast away aversion, One can understand well-spoken counsel.”

When this was said, the brahmin Paccanıkas›ta said to the Blessed One: “Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama!… Let Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who from today has gone for refuge for life.”


How does someone decide from what direction to approach the twelve-Nidānas? From what I can gather (from wikipedia) there are four methods:

  The Twelve Nidānas are explained in detail in the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa, the central text of the Mahāvihāra commentarial tradition. Buddhaghosa recounts four methods to interpret the Twelve Nidanas:

Working from "bottom to top",
Working from the "middle to the top",
Working from "top to bottom",
Working from the "middle to the source".

  The first method begins with ignorance and proceeds to sickness, old age, and death. The second method begins with attachment and proceeds to birth. The third method begins with birth and proceeds back to ignorance. The fourth method begins with attachment and proceeds to ignorance.

Given these different approaches, how can an individual decide which they are most suited to follow in order to revert the chain and where in the suttas can each approach be found?

Because I believe I understand twelve nidanas, I suggest you approach them from the bottom up.

This way, each next nidana up will be the "cause" (or, more precisely, the ground or the context) for the one below it.

As I said here, I believe the relationship between nidanas is that of implication. Be sure to check out the thoughts of Nanavira Thera and ven. Buddhadasa for useful hints. I do not agree with all of their conclusions but they are on the right path, as far as I can see.


Did the Buddha teach the Mahayana I understand that according to some "schools" at least historical ones that the historical Buddha didn't teach the Mayanaha.

Is that true?

At the time of the Buddha there were no schools, only one "type" of Buddhism was known: The teachings of the Buddha, the discourses and verses spoken by him.

Buddha taught the Dhamma-Vinaya, he did not teach Theravada, Mahayana or Zen.

After the Buddha passed away to PariNibbana, the monks got together in councils to unify and register the teachings of the master, they put together the suttas, the Vinaya, the verses (Dhammapada), Jakata stories etc.

After many decades there was a split in the Sangha due to different interpretations of the teachings and that was when this discussion of Mahayana and Theravada began. As Buddhism reached different countries, different versions of the religion appeared addapting Buddhism to the culture and older religions of the country. Tibetan Buddhism is a good example, it still has traces of Astrology and Shamanism in some of its schools (this is not criticism, I'm not claiming this or that school is right or wrong, I tried not to take any side on this answer and respect all views)


What are Sensuality, Strings of Sensuality, and Fermentation of Sensuality? Can someone explain sensuality, strings of sensuality, and fermentation of sensuality thoroughly?
I want to know,

What is it?
The main cause for it.
The result of it.
Where it lies in the dependent origination?
Difference between above terms.

It'd be very helpful if you provide Sutta references with the answer.

Sensuality and strings of sensuality is a very specific translation by Ven. Thanissaro.
Piya Tan translates them in Nibbedhika (Pariyāya) Sutta (quoted below) as sensual desires (instead of sensuality) and cords of sensual pleasures (instead of strings of sensuality).

Sensual desires (kāmā), bhikshus, should be known;
The source for the arising of sensual desires should be known.
The diversity of sensual desires should be known.
The result of sensual desires should be known.
The cessation of sensual desires should be known.
The way to the cessation of sensual desires should be known.
—so it is said, but in what connection is this said?

There are these 5 cords of sensual pleasures (kāma,guṇa):
forms cognizable by the eye,
desirable, attractive, pleasant, endearing, associated with sensual desires, delightful;
sounds cognizable by the ear,
desirable, attractive, pleasant, endearing, associated with sensual desires, delightful;
smells cognizable by the nose,
desirable, attractive, pleasant, endearing, associated with sensual desires, delightful;
tastes cognizable by the tongue,
desirable, attractive, pleasant, endearing, associated with sensual desires, delightful;
touches cognizable by the body,
desirable, attractive, pleasant, endearing, associated with sensual desires, delightful.
Bhikshus, these are not sensual objects (kāma), but in the noble discipline, they are called 'the cords of sensual pleasures'

It's interesting that the last statement differentiates the two.
Piya Tan explains in his commentary:

Now that we have examined all the lines of the “kāma verse,” we can
better understand what its preceding prose line — one of the most
enigmatic statements in the early canon—means, when the Buddha
declares: “These are not sensual objects, but in the noble discipline,
they are called ‘the cords of sensual pleasures.”
In the suttas, sense-objects (kāmā) are called “the cords of sensual
pleasure” (kāma,guṇa) because we make them so in our minds. We “desire”
(kāmeti) them; we accumulate them: we make a “pile” and proliferation
(guṇa) of them—so that they become a “cord” (guṇa) that binds and
plays with us. When the enemy is named, it is known — we are in a
better position to defend, strengthen and free ourselves.

In Sabb’āsava Sutta, Piya Tan translates what Ven. Thanissaro calls "fermentation of sensuality" as "influx of sense-desire" (kām’āsava).
He explains what influxes are:

The term “influx” (āsava) refers to a category of
defilements existing at the deepest level of the mind, and which fuel
and sustain samsaric existence. The Commentaries derive
āsava (BHS āśrava, asrava) from √ŚRU, to flow. The prefix ā-can refer to
inward or outward. Hence, it can be rendered as “influxes,
influences,”since they fuel our existence and prolong our suffering.It
also refers to pus and other discharges from a bad wound; hence, it can
also be translated as “outflows, effluents,” or more poetically as
“cankers, corruptions, taints.”

Later he uses commentaries and other sources which I could not find yet, to link the influx of sensual desires to the five lower fetters of personality view (sakkāya,diṭṭhi), spiritual doubt (vicikicchā), attachment to rituals and vows (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), sensual lust (kāma,rāga) and repulsion (paṭigha).
The main cause for the cords of sensual pleasures?
From Nibbedhika (Pariyāya) Sutta:

And what, bhikshus, is the source for the arising of sensual desires
(kāmānaṁ nidāna,sambhavo)? Contact (phassa), bhikshus, is the source
for the arising of sensual desires.

What is the result of the cords of sensual pleasures?
From Nibbedhika (Pariyāya) Sutta:

And what, bhikshus, is the result of sensual desires
(kāmānaṁvipāko)? Bhikshus, one having sensual desires is reborn as
an individual into this or that existence depending on what
constitutes merit or on what constitutes demerit. — This, bhikshus, is
called the result of sensual desires.

I prefer Ven. Thanissaro's translation here for this:

"And what is the result of sensuality? One who wants sensuality
produces a corresponding state of existence, on the side of merit or
demerit. This is called the result of sensuality.

Where it lies in dependent origination?
This would be my guess - cords of sensual pleasures or strings of sensuality cover feeling (vedanā), craving (taṇhā) and clinging (upādāna). So, basically between contact (phassa) and existence (bhava). These would be feeling, craving and clinging associated with sights, sounds, smell, taste and touch.


Can you explain how cessation of existence is known to be possible? People from other sects may argue against Buddhism on the following grounds.
I invite the community of BSE to explain by reasoning or analogy how cessation of existence, which is known as the Nibbana-principle, as it is explained in Buddhism, isn't a philosophical fallacy of "something turning into nothing" in order to refute those arguments.
I call the idea of "something turning into nothing" a fallacy because it can be explained to contradict the law of conservation of energy or simply put; supposedly no existant thing known to a man is known to simply disappear without a trace and thus destroyed without being somehow transformed into some other state, in particular neither matter, nor energy or information can be deleted without a trace, afaik this has been experimentally established as a truth.
If cessation of existence, an abandoning of all being with no fuel for a future is possible, then how is it logically acceptable?
You are welcome to try showing how "something turning into nothing" is not a fallacy if you want to try that.
Extra points if you substantiate your answer with EBTs.
Put shortly the problem here is such that a person says; 'Buddha Gotama teaches annihilaton and it's impossible, it cannot happen that existant things can be annihilated.'
It's a strawman argument.

I'll use the analogy of the Lute Sutta.
You hear beautiful music coming out of a lute, a stringed musical instrument. If you break it down into its constituent parts, you cannot find music anywhere.
Similarly, reification (papanca) creates the idea of the self, and also the idea of all the non-self things and their relationship to the self. When the existence of the self i.e. the mental idea of the self ("I am the thinker" - from Snp 4.14) ceases, then suffering ceases.
The music in the analogy is the self. The lute in the analogy is the being or satta (Vajira Sutta), an assemblage of the five aggregates.
The different parts of the lute are like the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formation and consciousness. Similar to how different parts of the lute work together to make music, the five aggregates work together according to dependent origination to build up and keep functioning the existence of the self, which is just a mental idea.
By cultivating wisdom, one eventually attains Nirvana, uprooting ignorance. Dependent origination is like a row of cards, the first of which is ignorance. When ignorance falls, the five clinging aggregates (SN 22.48) cease, hence the tainted version of mental formation, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense bases, contact and feeling, all fall. However, the (non-clinging) aggregates remain, which is what is meant by the Nibbana element with fuel remaining in Iti 44. With this, craving, clinging, becoming / existence, birth (the idea of a self) and suffering (aging, death and this entire mass of suffering) all fall and cease.
So, in this case, the lute remains, but no music comes out of it anymore. It may make sounds (i.e. the operation of the five aggregates), but it does not make sweet music (the self) any more. The arahat can feel the physical sensations of pain and pleasure, but does not suffer from them. The arahat can also have intentions and plans, without being tainted with defilements and the three poisons.
When the arahat's physical body dies, it's referred to as Nibbana element without fuel remaining in Iti 44. Here, the lute is broken into pieces and no sound comes out of it anymore. The five aggregates are no longer experienced. Also, the appearance of a being (satta), the assemblage of the five aggregates ceases. This is an emergent phenomena.
Back to the original analogy of the lute - when you break down the lute into its constituent parts, you cannot find music. There is no single thing or object such as music. It is simply an emergent phenomena that appears when different parts of the lute work together.
Upon Nirvana, what disappears is the emergent phenomena of a self - a mental idea, and also the rest of the reification of non-self mental ideas that relate ideas of the world to the self. Nothing concrete gets destroyed. No single object or thing that can be isolated gets destroyed.
Upon the physical death of the arahat, what disappears is the emergent phenomena of a being (satta), the assemblage of the five aggregates.
What is an emergent phenomena? If you arrange pebbles on a beach to look like a human face, then from the sky you can see the emergent phenomena, which is the form of a human face. But if you look closely, it's just an arrangement of pebbles.
To say that there is a concrete object called music or in this case the self - is eternalism. To say that there is no music at all or in this case, no self at all - is annihilationism. Instead, we explain the emergent phenomena of music by way of how it emerges from the inter-working of the different parts of the lute. Similarly, we explain the emergent phenomena of the self by the inter-working of the five aggregates, by means of dependent origination. This is discussed in the Acela Sutta.
Just like music, the lute is also an emergent phenomena - it is composed of various parts. Similarly, the self and the being are also emergent phenomena.
The self understood as an emergent phenomena, is the concept of anatta (not-self). The self and being understood as emergent phenomena that is objectified and classified by the mind into concrete things, is the concept of papanca (reification).
"Turning something into nothing" combines eternalism (something) and annihilationism (nothing). Instead, the explanation above takes the middle way of dependent origination and emergent phenomena.

Another analogy similar to the lute analogy is that of the scent of a flower in Khemaka Sutta.
A similar discussion occurs in the Yamaka Sutta on whether the Buddha ceases to exist after death. There it is proven that Buddha as a person is also an emergent phenomena that is not something concrete or something that can be isolated as a single object or thing.

Addendum based on discussions in the comments:
As answered by Andrei, "existence" in "cessation of existence" refers to bhava. Sometimes also translated as "becoming".
This is on the chain of dependent origination after clinging and before birth (the mental idea of the self). Cessation of existence is really cessation of the mental idea of the self, which is a reification, along with the reification that objectifies and classifies things into non-self objects according to their relationship to the self.
It's the cessation of the mental ideas that lead to suffering, which is next on the chain of dependent origination after birth. "Cessation of existence" is not cessation of the non-clinging aggregates. Of course, when ignorance ceased, the clinging aggregates ceased.
For e.g. a piece of cooked meat. To a non-vegetarian, it's delicious food. To a vegan, it's a disgusting thing.  If the vegan becomes a arahat, he drops thinking "I am a vegan", "this is my car"  and he sees cooked meat as what it really is, rather than associating with his self-identity.
These mental ideas are reification of emergent phenomena, that leads to suffering. The cause of it leads back down the chain of dependent origination all the way to ignorance.


Anapanasati vs Vipassana, what to follow? I have a friend who recently did Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program as designed by Jon Kabat Zinn. I haven't done it myself but he explained to me that it is based on the Vipassana technique of awareness-based body scans.
I have done S.N.Goenkya's ten days meditation courses but I currently follow Ajahn Brahmas meditation guide book Mindfulness Bliss and Beyond. When I told my friend who didn't know about Ajahn Brahma, he said 'his teacher said that calming the mind is a wrong technique of meditation'.
Now when I look at it, S.N Goenka's Vipassana technique though good for healing the subconscious mind does not talk about reaching higher meditative absorption of Jhanas. Whereas Ajahn Brahm, in his book and
in his youtube videos talk about reaching Nimmitas and Jhana through Anapanasati i.e. Breath Awareness Meditation.
I want to ask;

Which is the right way to go?
What is the difference between Vipassana and Anapanasati goals of attainment?
Can I attain Nirvana without doing Vipassana but by just doing Anapanasati?
Is there a difference between Vipassana Jhana and Anapanasati Jhana?

Practice unfolds according to view. When a practitioner declares, "this works!" or "this does not work!" there is always context to be considered. What was the original individual view?
The Buddha himself pointed this out regarding the practice of serenity and discernment:

AN4.94:2.1: As for the person who has serenity but not discernment: they should approach someone who has discernment and ask: ‘Reverend, how should conditions be seen? How should they be comprehended? How should they be discerned?’ That person would answer from their own experience: ‘This is how conditions should be seen, comprehended, and discerned.’ After some time they have both serenity and discernment.
AN4.94:3.1: As for the person who has discernment but not serenity: they should approach someone who has serenity and ask: ‘Reverend, how should the mind be stilled? How should it be settled? How should it be unified? How should it be immersed in samādhi?’ That person would answer from their own experience: ‘Reverend, this is how the mind should be stilled, settled, unified, and immersed in samādhi.’ After some time they have both discernment and serenity.
AN4.94:4.1: As for the person who has neither serenity nor discernment: they should approach someone who has serenity and discernment and ask: ‘Reverend, how should the mind be stilled? How should it be settled? How should it be unified? How should it be immersed in samādhi?’ How should conditions be seen? How should they be comprehended? How should they be discerned?’ That person would answer as they’ve seen and known: ‘Reverend, this is how the mind should be stilled, settled, unified, and immersed in samādhi. And this is how conditions should be seen, comprehended, and discerned.’ After some time they have both serenity and discernment.

Serenity and discernment work together. We need them both. It doesn't help to neglect a weakness to practice a strength. We need to understand what is lacking and work to strengthen what is lacking. Different people have different views of what is needed. Your friend and you are different people with individual views. What works for your friend may or not work for you. The end goal is the same, but the practice will differ according to view. Approach the teacher with the right view.

AN3.53:1.1: Then a brahmin went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. Seated to one side he said to the Buddha: “Master Gotama, they speak of ‘a teaching visible in this very life’. In what way is the teaching visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves?”


How Can One Tell The Difference Between The Spiritual Mind And The Physical Mind? Is there any information in the texts that tell you the difference between the spiritual mind and the physical mind. I know there are ways to transcend, but that's not what I'm looking for. What I'm asking is complicated. At what is a thought or action created by the physical mind/brain, and when is a thought or action created by the spiritual mind, or super-consciousness, or whatever. Or, are all thoughts/action created by the mind?

There are other sources that support the notion that there is only one mind or consciousness in all that is. Here is one such source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_body

  In contrast with many Indian religious traditions, Buddhism does not
  regard the body and the mind or spirit as being two entirely separate
  entities- there is no sense in Buddhism that the body is a "vessel"
  that is guided or inhabited by the mind or spirit.[1] Rather, the body
  and mind combine and interact in a complex way to constitute an
  individual. Buddhist attitudes towards the body itself are complex,
  combining the distaste for sensual pleasure that characterizes the
  general Buddhist view towards desire with a recognition of both the
  individuals dependence on the body, and the utility of the body as an
  aide in the development of insight.

Roshi Suzuki has given lectures to American students teaching what is beginner's mind. It might be of interest.
www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf

When thoughts stop, there is nothing but sweet nothingness.


Jhanic potential in Christians? I was reading over at this post...

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26834/13249

...and saw this reply (quoted below) and wondered if I could get some elaboration.
How is it a Christian could have jhanic potential? Are we talking about merit, morality, ethics, or spiritual health? Dispassion for material goods and wealth?

Is this a common view held by Buddhist?

"Also, at least in the West, many people with jhanic potential are Christians." ~ Dhammadhatu

It's wise to say that Buddhism doesn't have any exclusivity on jhana type experiences thus they are naturally occurring events with the name 'jhana' appended to its experience. What I think may be unique about Buddhism is its ability to define the conditions for each jhanic experience. The Buddha describes this in the Jhana sutta

Yes, almost everyone has the potential to experience jhana. The identification with the word 'christian' does not diminish nor enhance that potential. However, the method in which you perceive yourself as 'being something' could hinder that potential. I take the example of 'being Buddhist' alongside 'learning to be a good person' - this doesn't seem to work as you are creating another mind concept to conform to. When you follow mind concepts in this way, misery looms.


What is the Noble Eightfold Path? Where is the Noble Eightfold Path found in the Pali Canon?  Are there significant differences among the traditions in its interpretation?

According to Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path

Now what, is the Noble Eightfold Path?

Right view

  Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress

Right resolve

  Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness

Right speech

  Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter

Right action

  Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity

Right livelihood

  There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood

Right effort

  (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

  (ii)He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

  (iii)He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

  (iv)He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen

Right mindfulness

  (i) There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.

  (ii) He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.

  (iii) He remains focused on the mind in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.

  (iv) He remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.

Right concentration

  (i) There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.

  (ii) With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance.

  (iii) With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.'

  (iv) With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain.


Anapannasati - Why the breath? Is there a specific reason why the breath is used as the object of anapanasati or to be more precise: Why did the Buddha chose the breath.

Does it mean then that in daily life our main object should also be the breath?

Seems that moderators are expecting a particular style in these answers, and so deleted my initial answer. I'll rephrase...

The reason that the breath is the most important meditation object is that unlike other objects they are always available. For example, you might forget your TM mantra or misplace your mandala. Other objects of meditation, such as decaying corpses, aren't usually freely available in the UK either :-)


How effective are guided meditation sessions in achieving the benefits of meditation? I find it difficult to meditate without guidance. I wish to use guided meditations for my practice.

How effective are guided meditation sessions in achieving the benefits of meditation?
What is the best way to use guided meditations to maximise their benefits?

For the purposes of relaxation, they are very effective.  If your goal is simply to de-stress, then by all means use what works.  Even the Buddha taught a gradual path and tailored his teaching to the station and goals of his audience.  Guided meditation is one shade on a spectrum ranging all the way to enlightenment.

However.  While guided meditation is an excellent way of slowing down mental chatter and decompressing, that's about as far as it will take you.  If you are really interested in Buddhism and wish to meditate for the purposes of developing insight and penetrating into the four noble truths, you have to go past the relaxed state of mind engendered by guided meditation.  You need to develop concentration.

Concentration can only be developed by you.  It is a choice that you make every moment - a choice to return to the breath when your mind starts to wander.  It's no different than physical exercise.  The more often you make the choice to maintain your concentration, the stronger your meditation becomes.  It also gets much easier with time.  Concentration is also subtle.  While you can use props like a candle or another person's voice, objects like the breath, kasinas, the body, etc. require much more focus and delicate handling.  Too much effort and they dissolve.  If you don't apply enough, they slip away.

I hope this doesn't come across as me saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with meditating simply to calm your mind.  Destressing certainly has value.  Just be sure to ask yourself what your goals are.  Your answer will determine how to make the most of your time on the cushion.


Why is lust considered as being unskillful? Sexual lust and pornography in Buddhism is considered as being unskillful, but for me it is not clear why.

If all parties involved consented to taking part in sexual acts, I don't see why they are morally wrong.

As a living animal we can give and be kind to others, but we also have our own needs which can be called healthy self-interest that we had better fulfill.

Why is it wrong to be primarily interested in a person on a sexual level? If we openly discuss our needs and theirs and are honest with them, I see no reason why it is bad.

Why is pornography wrong? In many cultures sex and/or pornography is looked down upon (or at least only acceptable once certain conditions are met, i.e. marriage) but the people there were in all probability consenting and they always have the chance to quit their job, too. Drug abuse or depression in pornography cannot necessarily be a direct correlation, but primarily a result of I) lack of coping skills and II) underlying irrational beliefs ABOUT STRESSORS and III) an unhelpful environment.

Imho, unskillful does not mean the same as morally wrong.

If I say something to someone who wasn't really open to hear what I had to say, doesn't make me saying this or that morally wrong. It is, however, unskillful, since the person didn't really pay any attention.

Why is it unskillful?
Because it leads to the habituation of clinging and attachment. If you want to strive for enlightenment, sex and pornography will hinder you on the path. Because of the increase of the addiction, attachment.

If you don't want to develop in a spiritual way, then it's not a question at all.

Skillful, unskillful has more to do with whether it helps you or others, whether it's helpful or a hindrance.

That's what comes to mind.
Hope it helps.


Are the Buddhist sutras 100% verified if applied in life? I remember my teacher mentioned this in class :

  "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
  believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
  Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
  religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
  your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they
  have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
  analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
  conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
  live up to it."

Does that mean that the sutras are 100% correct if I follow them? because it is very confusing, or according to what siddartha mentioned, I can't even trust the sutras when he says do not believe?

In the real quote (here), the Buddha emphasized believing in that which:

"when adopted & carried out, does not lead to harm & to suffering"
and
"when adopted & carried out, leads to welfare & to happiness".

Therefore, you can trust the majority of the sutras because the majority (but not all) are about giving up harm & suffering and cultivating welfare & happiness.

The Buddha wanted his followers to investigate & realise the teachings for themselves.


Are eating raw oysters a violation of the first Precept? The first Precept is to abstain from Killing a "living being".

Is there a consistent definition of Living Being that we should not kill to avoid violating the first Precept?

I have heard of a definition such as a Living Being means they have the Five Aggregates, so that Plants / Germs do not count as they do not have all Five and cannot be reincarnated into.... etc. But I don't know if this definition is widely accepted in either Theravada or Mahayana.

If this definition is accepted, how do we know what beings do not have all Five Aggregates? If not, is there any other definitions that we can use?

Would also want to know if Clams, Oysters, Corals...etc... are considered as having all of the Five Aggregates too.

Five Aggregates:
1. form (or matter or body) (rupa),
2. sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana),
3. perceptions (samjna),
4. mental activity or formations (sankhara), and
5. consciousness (vijnana)

The  word 'panatipata'  is  derived  from  two  words: 'pana'  which means  'living  being'  and 'atipata'  which  means  'striking  down', hence  killing  or  destroying.  According  to  the Atthasalini or Expositor, for killing to take place five conditions must be met.

    The being must be alive.
    There must be knowledge that it is a living being.
    There must be intention to cause its death.
    Action must be taken to cause its death.
    Death must result from such action.

      If  all  these  conditions  are  fulfilled,  then  the  precept  has  been broken.

~ Cited from: Five Precepts (Pncasila)

If all the above conditions are not met, the action doesn't become a kammapata (action which gives birth in another existence) but become only a kamma (action which gives its result during the lifetime of a living being in an existence).

Suppose you eat something. But you don't know it's a living being. First precept is not broken for such action.

Suppose you see something on your desk and think of it as a bug. You hit that with your hand with the intention of killing that bug. But later you get to know it's not a bug but something which was not alive. First precept is not broken for such action. But you accumulate bad kamma for such action.

Suppose you see a flying mosquito and you hit that mosquito with a mosquito racket with the intention of killing it. But mosquito is not killed (let's assume the battery in the racket was drained). First precept is not broken for such action. But you accumulate bad kamma for such action.

Suppose you gave medicine to a ill dog with the intention of saving that dog. But then that dog die of that medicine. For such action you don't accumulate bad kamma. Actually you accumulate good kamma for such action.

Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.


eye movement during meditation During my past several meditation sessions, which have been getting a little longer (approx 20 minutes now), I have noticed that my eyes twitch and move involuntarily -- it feels similar to the eye movements you can see when people are in REM sleep.

As far as my meditation is concerned, it feels very distracting -- it typically occurs when I feel like I'm on the precipice of deeper concentration, but it results in so much motion and tension that it typically breaks my concentration.

Has anyone else encountered this before? After googling around, I found one meditator explain that this was a sign of slipping into "trance," not of deeper concentration. Is that a thing? Any thoughts on remedies? Thanks!

If you feel alert, and not sleepy or distracted while it happens, it may be one of the things that naturally occurs as you start to get deeper concentration.

A number of vaguely unpleasant experiences can spring up- aches, itching, etc.; they come with the territory, and aren't problems in and of themselves, although they may feel frustrating when you're starting to enjoy the sense of concentration.

Take note that it happens, and take note of the feelings of frustration or distraction as they emerge. If you have time, see if you can sit until you get to the other side of it; but don't worry too much if you can't, right away. It's likely a sign that you're doing well, believe it or not.


Thoughts and meditation. Meditation as a whole states that 'Remain untouched to what goes in the mind. Let front door and back door be opened. Don't serve tea to the thoughts.' But at some point it is pretty confusing that do i really need to remain untouched to the thoughts. Like sometimes, the thoughts of the spirits, gods comes into the mind. Do they need to be discarded? But, as we know the mind in itself never stops thinking.

Not "discarded" no. Just not touched. That's why they said leave front and back doors open. So they can enter and exit. You don't have to chase them away.

But yeah, some thoughts can be very cool and interesting. And the more you meditate, more interesting they get :)
It is very tempting to think about some of them...

It doesn't mean you should stop them or not stop them, or be guilty, or proud. Just remain open and don't serve tea to the thoughts, I love that expression.


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

They refer to various sutra collections within the Tipitaka.

Like for example,

AN = Anguttara Nikaya
MN = Maddhiyama Nikaya

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

  The Tipitaka (Pali ti, "three," + pitaka, "baskets"), or Pali canon,
  is the collection of primary Pali language texts which form the
  doctrinal foundation of Theravada Buddhism. The Tipitaka and the
  paracanonical Pali texts (commentaries, chronicles, etc.) together
  constitute the complete body of classical Theravada texts.

  The Pali canon is a vast body of literature: in English translation
  the texts add up to thousands of printed pages. Most (but not all) of
  the Canon has already been published in English over the years.
  Although only a small fraction of these texts are available on this
  website, this collection can be a good place to start.

  The three divisions of the Tipitaka are:

  Vinaya Pitaka

  The collection of texts concerning the rules of conduct
  governing the daily affairs within the Sangha — the community of
  bhikkhus (ordained monks) and bhikkhunis (ordained nuns). Far more
  than merely a list of rules, the Vinaya Pitaka also includes the
  stories behind the origin of each rule, providing a detailed account
  of the Buddha's solution to the question of how to maintain communal
  harmony within a large and diverse spiritual community.

  Sutta Pitaka

  The collection of suttas, or discourses, attributed to the Buddha and
  a few of his closest disciples, containing all the central teachings
  of Theravada Buddhism. (More than one thousand sutta translations are
  available on this website.)
  The suttas are divided among five nikayas
  (collections):
  Digha Nikaya — the "long collection"
  Majjhima Nikaya —
  the "middle-length collection"
  Samyutta Nikaya — the "grouped
  collection"
  Anguttara Nikaya — the "further-factored collection"
  Khuddaka Nikaya — the "collection of little texts":
  Khuddakapatha
  Dhammapada
  Udana
  Itivuttaka
  Sutta Nipata
  Vimanavatthu
  Petavatthu
  Theragatha
  Therigatha
  Jataka
  Niddesa
  Patisambhidamagga
  Apadana
  Buddhavamsa
  Cariyapitaka
  Nettippakarana (included only in the Burmese
  edition of the Tipitaka)
  Petakopadesa (  "   "  )
  Milindapañha (  "  "  )

  Abhidhamma Pitaka

  The collection of texts in which the underlying doctrinal principles
  presented in the Sutta Pitaka are reworked and reorganized into a
  systematic framework that can be applied to an investigation into the
  nature of mind and matter.

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


Is lying at a job interview breaking a precept? Since lying is not really directed at a person, can it still be harmful? I have had multiple jobs before when the companies I worked for had no issues lying to me(on a organizational level)

I can see how lying(when done successfully) can make myself believe I am something I am not and hence inflate my ego but what if this is not the case and the lying is only done with a sense of wanting to get a position and work hard and achieve something?

Causes of False Speech

The root causes of false speech are greed, hatred and delusion.

Greed is the root cause when false speech is used to obtain
material gain or status for oneself or someone dear to oneself.
Hatred is the root cause when false speech is used to cause loss
and bring harm and suffering to others.
Delusion is the root cause when it is used neither for one's gain
nor to cause loss and harm to others, but for the sake of
enjoyment such as lying for the sake of a joke, exaggeration to
spice up a story, or flattery to please others, etc.

Lying to get a job falls under the 1st category. So yes, it  does break the fourth precept.


Attacking others with words such as they are weapons Reference needed.  I remember reading a sutta where Buddha mentioned something like a stream enterer would no longer use words to attack others like weapons.  I would like to read that sutta in its entirety again.  Thanks.

There's a phrase like that Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (Ud 6.4):

And they kept on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying,

"The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this."

This sutta contains the simile of the elephant.
The phrase is also in the next two suttas (Ud 6.5 and 6.6).


What is the origin of Buddho meditation? Some people say its from the forests of Thailand before Ajaan Sao's time -

Some people say it comes from the Pali Canon but was scrubbed over time

Some people say it comes from Sri Lanka

Some say its just another meditation object recollecting the buddha

"Buddho is the most precious gem in the three worlds of existence – a jewel of all-pervading knowledge" Ajaan Mun Bio p.200

Mantras come from the fantasy of puthujjanas that sensual objects will purify their citta, which is very idiotic.

For instance the hindus have their Om sound and they say a sound will get them to nirvana.

The Buddhists have heard that samadhi is about the lack of hindrances, for instance lack of doubt, and as usual with people infatuated with sensuality, they claim that when they fix an object, like a word or some visual mantra like a kasina, the hindrances stop and therefore whatever samadhi they get from that is the samadhi that the buddha teaches.
So they say that when they repeat buddho buddho buddho for a long time, they do not have doubt, therefore the citta is purified like the buddha says.

As usual with puthujjanas they create secret stuff and they applied this to mantras so they even have secret mantras.

You can view the first tetrad of the breath mediation as the mantra, but the breath mediation is not about watching the breath, contrary to what some buddhists say, but about calming and killing some sankharas which is a lot of work.


I am seeking advice for blasphemous intrusive thoughts I suffer with Pure obsessive compulsive disorder. I regularly have intrusive thoughts of all different kinds and I can be pretty anxious sometimes. Although I know that thoughts are only just thoughts, I can't help but feel that the thoughts have a negative karmic effect. I never agree with such thoughts and do my best to just maintain awareness of them and letting them go.
Although they sometimes do take over my mind, It's generally alright to deal with. However, earlier today, I was in the middle of a crude act. I.e masturbation. During the session, I had intrusive, blasphemous thoughts of a Bodhisattva. My mind had created a thought which involved seeing the bodhisattva in a sexual way. Even just typing this is making me feel extremely uncomfortable but I desperately need advice. It was obviously never my intention to think those thoughts. What are the karmic effects of this? I respect all Buddhas and all Bodhisattvas immensely. I respect all beings immensely. Have these thoughts planted a very negative seed?
I have a huge fear right now of a hell rebirth. Although I know that I didn't intend for those thoughts to happen and I know that I don't agree with such thoughts and I know that thoughts are just thoughts, do these kinds of thoughts hold a stronger 'weight' to them? I know that a violent thought is bad. But is a blasphemous thought towards a Buddha or bodhisattva really bad?
Please help. I'm grateful for any wise words.

Let me ask you this - which is more powerful, the original thought or the regret and repentance you have for having thought it?  The stronger one is more determinate of your karma than the weaker.


How does an arahant know that ignorance won't return/re-arise after death? The earlier aspects that now seem less relevant imo:

  ---How can it be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise and why won't it return/re-arise if there is no consciousness after death?
  ---From what I remember seeing according to the linear view of the links of dependent origination ignorance is the cause of fabrications
  and fabrications are the cause of consciousness.
  ---It seems to me that consciousness is required for this type of knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowing and thus
  certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death if there
  isn't even consciousness?

The aspects below that I currently think are more relevant:

Is it considered as being abhiññā i.e "direct knowledge" that occurs before the arahant dies?

How does one know that this abhiññā is completely true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.

"Logically-speaking" doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience to verify that one isn't deceiving oneself?

How it can be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise or why it won't return/re-arise if there is no consciousness at the time.

  “Bhikkhus, there are these five higher fetters. What five? Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. The Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.

  “What Noble Eightfold Path? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops right view … right concentration, which has as its final goal the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion … which has the Deathless as its ground, the Deathless as its destination, the Deathless as its final goal … which slants, slopes, and inclines towards Nibbāna. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
  SN 45.180

So ignorance won’t arise anymore because an arahant has cut off all 10 fetters. Ignorance is one of those fetters. An arahant have direct knowledge of these fetters and he knows their destruction and he also knows if the fetters are abandoned or not.

It seems to me that consciousness is required for knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowledge and thus certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death?

When an arahant dies he is free of the 10 fetters including ignorance and he also know the four noble truths so he will not be reborn. At the moment of his death, there was no ignorance so all things in the dependent origin that comes after ignorance will not arise because ignorance is not present at the moment of death.

Is it through direct knowledge of the entire future that occurs before death?

An arahant usually knows that birth is ended. It is usually mentioned in the suttas.

Is it known through abhijñā i.e "direct knowledge", of the entire future, before the arahant dies?

There was one sutta where a guy asked an arahant if he has psychic powers but the arahant replied no. I can’t find this sutta so can anyone tell me. So the abhijna or the six higher knowledge aren’t required to be an arahant except the last one which is the ending of mental fermentation. An arahant can develop psychic powers after becoming an arahant but they probably don’t have any desire to achieve those powers.

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' This, too, is how striving is fruitful, how exertion is fruitful.
  MN 101

So as you can see, an arahant knows that he is released and that there will be no further birth.

Doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience?

No, only the Buddha was omniscience. An arahant would know that there will be no further birth because

1) The Buddha told them that attaining arahantship will end rebirth

2) When he is released there is the knowledge “release”

3) He knows there is no next life by looking into the future with psychic powers.

I think 1 and 2 are the most possible way to know that he will not be reborn because not all arahants have psychic powers. It’s not even needed to look into the future because arahant knows that there is no further birth.

How does one know that the abhiññā is true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.

If you are literally flying then you would know there you are flying. If you can travel to other realms then you would know it. Omniscience is not required. You don’t need omniscience to know that your memories are real or not. If you try to remember what happened just an hour ago then you know that memory is true. In the same way, when you recollect your past lives you know that it’s true. Abhinna are as real as moving your hands or legs.  So you will know if you have abinna or not.


In what suttas are the "4 resolves" (adhiṭṭhānī) discussed? I have heard this list discussed in Dharma talks like this one:
Gil Fronsdal: The Four Resolves (Recorded: Monday, June 12, 2017)
But when I tried to find suttas on this subject, I could only find 1 in which the existence of the "4 resolves" was mentioned.
DN 33: Saṅgāti Sutta

MN 140.

Bhikkhu, this person has four foundations.’ So it was said. And with
reference to what was this said? There are the foundation of wisdom,
the foundation of truth, the foundation of relinquishment, and the
foundation of peace. So it was with reference to this that it was
said: ‘Bhikkhu, this person has four foundations.’
'One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should
cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace.’ So it was said.
And with reference to what was this said?


What is the Theravada Buddhist lay lifestyle? I am thinking about becoming a Buddhist, particularly a Theravada Buddhist but I must know about the lifestyle so I can change my lifestyle a bit. There is no Buddhist temple around where I am so I have nobody to ask. I do not wish to become a nun so the question are for more non-ordained Buddhist. So here are my questions.

What exactly is a lay Buddhist and what rules do they follow?
Are all non-ordained Buddhist considered a lay person?
Do certain things apply in Buddhism since I am female?
Can I handle money? (cash, coins, cards, etc.)
What time of day are considered inappropriate to eat? How many meals can I have a day? Can I drink liquid any time? (Milk, Water, Juice, etc.) No alcohol.
Do I need a shrine? What are considered luxury items? Should I not have luxury items?
Can I have entertainment? (TV, Computer, Phone, Music, etc.)
Do I fast? If so, when do I fast?
Do I need to wear certain clothing if I become a Buddhist? Do I need to shave my head?
Do I chant and meditate daily?
Can I meditate without a monk/nun and without a temple?

That is all I want to know. I hope all my questions can be answered. Thanks you and all may be happy.

Generally, we try to submit each question individually, but I'll do my best to answer these briefly from the Theravada tradition and give links for further information.

A lay Buddhist follows the teachings of the Buddha and observes the Five Precepts. A lay Buddhist also Takes Refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.
The Buddha defined 4 types of followers: monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The special name for a lay man is Upāsaka and for a lay woman is Upāsikā.
All four types of followers listed above are important. Buddhism was the first religion to accept women as equals. A woman can become enlightened. A Buddha however is always a man. However, with rebirths, we'll all be men, women, etc. at one time or another, so nothing needs to be ruled out. ;-)
As a practical matter, a woman in the Theravada tradition needs to keep some distance from an ordained male and a man needs to keep some distance from an ordained female. There is no physical contact such as a handshake with an ordained person of the opposite gender. Really the most appropriate way to greet a monastic is with palms together at the heart or at the forehead.
You can handle money, only monastics have rules against that.
On ordinary days you eat as normal, though mindful eating is always good. On Uposatha Days (or during a meditation course or retreat) you may wish to observe the 8 Precepts instead of 5 Precepts. In that case you would eat only between dawn and noontime. And yes, no alcohol at all.
You don't need a shrine. Some people like to have a statue of the Buddha or an area dedicated to meditation. But it's optional.
Yes, you can have entertainment although if you are observing the 8 Precepts you would avoid entertainment during 8 Precept observation. Buddhists who are concentrating on beginning or continuing a meditation practice often limit entertainment as it's not conducive to meditation.
If you observe the 8 Precepts you wouldn't eat after noontime. But you would generally eat a full meal before noontime. So extended fasting is not really part of Buddhist tradition. It's considered an ascetic practice and Buddhism is more about the middle way.
Ordained Buddhists shave their heads. It's not necessary for lay followers; but not disallowed either. The only clothing that is different for lay followers is sometimes at intensive meditation courses or on Uposatha days or other special occasions, lay followers wear all white. It's a tradition in Thailand and other Buddhist countries in Asia and sometimes that tradition is followed in the West as well. But not always.
A regular meditation practice is considered very important. Not all Buddhists chant, but that too can be considered an important part of the practice. Some people feel chanting helps settle their mind for meditation.
Yes, you can meditate at home and find support for your practice online in communities such as this and others. But the funny thing is, there can be Buddhist temples tucked away in lots of Western communities that people don't even know about. Many are smaller and don't really stand out. Some don't have websites or do any advertising or promotion. So it can take a while to know for sure whether or not there are any local Buddhist temples, groups, or meditation centers in an area. If there is a University near you, you might find a Buddhist group that meets there. I hope you'll be happily surprised to find something near you to support your practice. But if not, the online Buddhist community is a great help as well. Best wishes. :)


Is generating intention necessary? Any intentional action is kamma. We do good and bad actions. Like any other actions, sometimes we do it intentionally, sometimes we just do it without intention.

Is it necessary to generating good intention before/when doing wholesome deed? The more we do good deeds the more frequent we create this intention which can easily become an obsession of the mind and create (new) sankhara. But if there is no intention, how can a good action become a good kamma?

Mental intention is always necessary for an action. However an intention (such as Right Intention of the Noble Eightfold Path) does not always have to have 'self' or 'attachment' involved with it.
There are three kinds of kamma: (1) bad kamma; (2) good kamma; & (3) void kamma.
The intrinsic meaning of 'good & bad kamma' is there is attachment or 'self' invested in the action & its results. To quote the scriptures:

And what is the right view with effluents (defilements), siding with merit (goodness), resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? There are
fruits & results of good & bad actions.
MN 117

'Void kamma' means there is no 'self' invested in the kamma.
Buddhas appear in the world for the primary purpose to teach about void kamma or ending kamma. The higher practise of Buddhism is doing necessary & compassionate kamma with a void mind or 'doing without a doer' (rather than for the accumulation of good karma). It is for stopping obsession with kamma & stopping creating (new) sankhara. To quote the scriptures:

And what is the cessation of kamma? This noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
Nibbedhika Sutta

In summary, the enlightened view is 'ignorance' is the doer of both good (meritorious) & bad (demeritorious) kamma and 'wisdom' is the doer of enlightened void selfless kamma.

Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates (abhisankharonti) a meritorious (good) formation (saṅkhāraṃ), consciousness fares on to the
meritorious; if he generates a demeritorious (bad) formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious; if he
generates an imperturbable formation, consciousness fares
on to the imperturbable. But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance
and aroused true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignorance
and the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious
(good) formation or a demeritorious (bad)
formation or an imperturbable formation. Since he does not
generate or fashion formations, he does not cling to
anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being
agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is
birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been
done, there is no more for this state of being.’
SN 12.51

This link may be helpful: Kamma in Buddhism


Is Buddhism against scientific attitude? According to Buddhism, the cause of all suffering is desire and liberation from desire would lead to the cessation of suffering.

But isn’t curiosity a desire? Is Buddhism against scientific attitude? Is it against scientific research? (as all research is about the desire to find answers to questions.)

No.
I'd say that Buddhism is or can be pro (in favour of) a scientific attitude. The structure of the four noble truths, for example, are analogous to medical thinking: symptoms, cause, cure, and prescription (or, possibly, analogous to the "scientific method": observations, hypothesis, prediction, and experiment).
Also there are different types of "desire": tanha is unwholesome craving, whereas chanda can be wholesome.
Furthermore Buddhism (more-or-less) encourages the proper functioning of lay society: including right livelihood and so on.
And a contemporary Buddhist leader (the Dalai Lama) says that Buddhism has a lot to offer or to add to science (e.g. here) -- or for example here, "The Science for Monks project is a direct result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s long-term personal interest in science".
I think it's true though that Buddhism doesn't put faith in merely technological development, any more than it says that the mere accumulation of material wealth is the ultimate solution for all life's problems.
Also, I think that "(idle) curiosity" may be endless: meaning, both "without limit" and "without (or with no good) purpose". But Buddhist Dharma is overtly purposeful and, therefore, limited (see for example Simsapa Sutta). I think it expects endeavour should be harmless, beneficial, benevolent: so I expect it opposes some types of "scientific" Research and Development (notably, probably, of weapons for example). Conversely I think there are scientific fields that have more affinity with Buddhism (possibly medicine or ecology).

For the sake of completeness I think that Buddhism (or some Buddhists) can also be dogmatic: the ancient descriptions of (for example) cosmology and pre-history don't co-exist easily with modern "scientific" theories of astronomy, geoscience, and evolution.
Some contemporary Buddhists might discount or excuse such dogma: for example as the unscientific product of its time; or as a corruption introduced into the (perfect) Dharma during subsequent history; or as having a metaphorical or pedagogical purpose which no longer needs to be taken literally.
Other Buddhists might hold that any doctrine that's canonical is therefore important (in spite of the Kalama sutta mentioned in Suminda's answer) and therefore (as you asked) be "against" modern science and "scientific attitude".
There are also some practices in Buddhist cultures and countries, which might be seen as "superstitious" rather than "scientific". But there are also Buddhists who would view these practices as "superstition" and (therefore) not "true Buddhism".
There are many suttas in which the Buddha seems to use and to encourage the use of  "scientific attitude", as opposed to the superstitions of his time.
People sometimes contrast Buddhism with Religions, which say "This is true because the prophet (or 'the holy book' or 'our tradition') says so" -- whereas I think that Buddhism's attitude is more like "This is true because it stands to reason, is observable."

One more comment -- I see people try to reconcile, compare, and/or compete Buddhism with science: for example, sometimes, saying that the Buddha taught about Atomic Theory well before "atoms" were discovered by modern experiment; or conversely, saying that science's discovery, that seemingly-solid matter is mostly empty space, is comparable to Buddhist doctrines on emptiness (sunyata).
I see them (science and Buddhism) as separate (independent) fields of endeavour and doctrine.
Within science, there's a conventional way to classify the fields of science into layers, e.g. illustrated here:

Each less "pure" discipline is arguably more complex, less simple, and is based on emergent properties of the field below (or to the right of) it.
I'd place Buddhism well to the left of that scale: highly complex, describing properties of complex phenomena (e.g. human beings). It's a study of things like:

subjective experience (suffering and non-suffering)
afflictive and affective obstacles (kilesa)
beneficial or practical qualities (bodhipakkhiyā dhammā)
ethics (sila)
social interaction (brahmaviharas)
wisdom
mahayana ideals and aspirations

Buddhism is a bit ruthless about what it considers on-topic and not. For example people ask, "Is there a Self?" and I think that Buddha's answer is that it's better not to think about that, that there's no view or doctrine about Self which would lead to the goal (of non-suffering).
There's an expression "not even wrong" which is used to describe what seem to  be muddled statements about physics. I like Wikipedia's description of it:

The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German.

I especially like the phrase, "Pauli remarked sadly".
In my opinion, Buddhism might describe science in general as neither "right" not "wrong" but as "not even wrong" -- because science more-or-less fails to make useful statements about topics which Buddhism considers important, for example "ethics" or "liberation from suffering" or anything like that.
I think that Saptha's answer and comments are that even when science has pleasant practical applications and consequences, these (and the pursuit of these) don't help to "unbind" people (i.e. to unbind from the "wheel of life").


Taking out the plank from one's own eye Is there any equivalent quotation from the Buddhist scriptures to the following from the Christian Bible (Matthew 7:3-5)?

  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay
  no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your
  brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time
  there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the
  plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the
  speck from your brother’s eye.

SN 55.7; MN 8; Dhp 158-159; MN 40

  One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
  One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is
  self-control.

  SN 55.7  Since I dislike this thing, how can I inflict it on someone else?


What is the attitude of Buddhists to "repulsive animals"? I recently started watching a documentary about Buddhism and animals and am curious to understand how the relationship extends to often what we as humans consider "repulsive" e.g. rodents, cockroaches, etc. If the intention is to keep these at bay without harm, how does one achieve that?

The most skillful way would be to ordain as a monk, foregoing the ownership of a house and not having to worry about it. Aside from that, the most you can probably hope to do is keep a clean house and don't let the conditions arise for  them to come to you.

Here's a good video on this issue: Ask A Monk: Dealing With Pests

This video includes advice that there are three Buddhist ways to deal with a problem:

Avoid the situation (e.g. shave head to avoid lice)
Find alternative non-violent solutions (e.g. repel ants using talcum powder or butter instead of poison; catch rats using humane traps; catch mosquitos in a cup and carry them outside)
Accept the situation and let go (mental well-being is more important than physical well-being; and mindfulness often leads to being able to resolve a situation)


Conflict between Brahmajala Sutta and current Buddhist practices I'm very confused about this sutta ( http://suttacentral.net/en/dn1) specially in the part "Mahāsīla"

Many of what the Buddha stated as wrong livelihood is very common in some Buddhist centres these days, things like: Astrology, selling lucky gems, offerings to deities etc... if you read the list in the sutta you will see it.

Is this sutta not part of some Buddhist cultures? Am I interpreting it in the wrong way? Or is it simply being ignored??

You are correct. The Buddha spoke out against such things because it corrupts the right livelihood of Monks because people will support Monks to get them to preform fortune telling for them or other such things instead of supporting Monks for their virtue and practice.

Most laypeople in Theravada countries don't engage in study of the canonical texts to any significant degree and they simply don't know better, and perhaps the Monks involved don't know it either. If they do and continue to do such things, I think it is very unfortunate.


Infinity, eternity, countlessness in Buddhism I'm interested in concepts of infinity, eternity, countlessness, etc. in Buddhist thought.

Could you please help me out with sources, both primary and secondary, where these concepts are used?

I know that there are countless beings, that the world existed forever, that Buddha's knowledge is limitless, that there are countless Buddhas, countless universes. But it is extremely hard to pin down exact scriptures where these concepts are elaborated and to find secondary sources where the issues of infinity and eternity are discussed.

Will be grateful for any help.

Thanks!

Questions regarding eternity are considered to lack an answer:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/avyakrita
According to the sutta quoted below, Buddha refrained from answering that type of questions. The reason for this comes from the buddhist notion of anatta, also mentioned below. The concepts are a bit hard to untangle, but this is the gist of it:

How is it, Master Gotama, is the world eternal?”… as above …
“What, Master Gotama, is the cause and reason why, when wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ And what is the cause and reason why, when Master Gotama is asked such questions, he does not give such answers?”
“Vaccha, wanderers of other sects regard form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. They regard feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ But, Vaccha, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, does not regard form as self … or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the Tathagata is asked such questions, he does not give such answers.

https://suttacentral.net/sn44.8/en/bodhi


State between Equanimity and 1st or 2nd or further path I heard from my teacher that between the insight "equanimity of formation" and the following path insights the meditator can be stuck in a delusion state. This state can only be mastered if the wisdowm faculties are ripe. The meditator cut through this with sharp mindfullness.

Does anywhere heart about that?

What is being asked about in the question is from Vipassana Dhura, which is 16 stages of insight from the Visuddhimagga, written by the commentator Buddhaghosa in 430 CE in Sri Lanka.
The sequence of the 16 stages of Vipassana Dhura is not something the Buddha taught & can be confusing because terms used in Vipassana Dhura that indicate a beginning stage of insight- such as 'nibbida' - the Buddha used as the final stage of insight (eg. SN 12.23 - 'disenchantment'). This can make discussions about Vipassana Dhura difficult.
That said, some degree of 'nibidda' (disenchantment with worldly things) is required at the beginning of the path. Therefore, the stages in Vipassana Dhura do have some validity.
The teachings attributed to the Buddha describe the following kind of 'equinimity' (which is called 'Sense Restraint') before the arising of the path:

On seeing a form with the eye, he doesn't grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the
faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or
distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On
smelling an aroma with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the
tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On
cognizing an idea with the intellect, he doesn't grasp at any theme or
details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the
faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or
distress might assail him. Endowed with this noble restraint over the
sense faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
blameless.
MN 38

This 'equinimity' of not grasping at 'themes', when well developed, can become a kind of (deluded) liberation, described in the scriptures (MN 43 called 'theme-less awareness-release').
This 'equinimity' can be a state of delusion because the mind, being accustomed to the feeling of liberation via 'non-judging' or 'non-discrimination', does not discern the characteristics & cause-&-effect realities of many things.
This kind of 'equinimity' many Hindu, Mahayana & Zen traditions call 'advaita' or 'non-duality'. It is a delusion because the mind believes 'non-thinking' & 'non-discrimination' is liberation. Thus, the mind clings to 'non-thinking'; not clearly seeing thinking (sankhara khandha) is also 'not-self'.
Even some Theravada Sri Lankans, such as  Katukurunde Nyanananda, give the impression of this delusion, as they give the impression they believe the ending of thinking ('sankhara') is Nibbana.

It should be noted this 'equinimity' is not the equinimity of the 4th jhana because the stream-enterer (1st path) has not reached the 4th jhana.


Is there any God or Satan in Buddhism? Is there any heaven or hell in Buddhism? Every religion has a God and Satan, heaven and hell. Religion by definition means deification of a Supreme Being or worship of any deity. Monotheistic religions, like Islam and Christianity, have a single God and a single devil/Satan. While polytheistic religions like Hinduism have gods and goddesses, and male and female demons. Is there any place for God and Satan, heaven and hell in Buddhism? What did Gautama Buddha say about it?

There are 31 planes of existence according to Buddhism.

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


How to stop a war according to Gouthama Buddha? Are there any scriptures discussing on how to prevent wars?
I mean for example, from the insights of scriptures, if Buddha were alive then how would Buddha have tried to stop World War 2?

There's a description of that here: Why Was the Sakyan Republic Destroyed?
I think the article is based on the canon, but I've forgotten where in the canon I read of it.
Anyway to quote from the article:

When the Buddha learned about this outbreak of hostility, he came there himself. On seeing this revered and eminent person from their royal clan, the warriors of both sides became deeply embarrassed. All of them laid down their weapons and paid homage to him. This was the traditional way of paying respects to the Buddha in those days.
Whenever King Pasenadi of Kosala went to pay respects to the Buddha, he would leave the royal insignia such as his sword, turban, fan, parasol and sandals outside with his attendant before entering the chamber of the Buddha.
The Buddha took the seat prepared for him on the open ground of the riverbank. The Sakyans and the Koliyans paid homage to the Buddha and sat respectfully on one side before him. The Buddha explained to them that their blood was much more valuable than the river-water. They should not spill blood unnecessarily. Instead, they should find a way to share the water peacefully. The Buddha was a peacemaker filled with compassion. He did not consider it proper that human life should be lost for the sake of trivial material gains.

And it goes on -- you can read the article for more.
The eventual outcome was that the Sakyan clan was massacred.


MN26: "not even has Alaro Kalamo..." or "not only Alaro Kalamo has ..." or "Alaro Kalamo has not only..."? I have a problem with that -in my feeling- contradictory translations of a remark in MN26. While K.E.Neumann uses an expression like "(...) not even Alaro Kalamo has (...), but I have (...) " Kay Zumwinkel translates: " not only Alaro Kalamo has (...), but also I have (...)"
The Zumwinkel's version is also compatible with the english version by Thanissaro Bhikku at AtI.org (still the focus of the sentence is a bit shifted). But the two other versions suggest that Neumann has an error here.
But of what type is the error with respect to the original? Is the expression in the original ambiguous (look at the additional tiny discrepancy between Zuminkel and Thanissaro)? Or is there some other reason why Neumann could possibly have made that translation which could be a bit more sensical than a simple error?

Palikanon.com, MN26, K. E. Neumann

  Da kam mir, ihr Mönche, der Gedanke: 'Nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo hat
  Zuversicht, ich aber habe Zuversicht; nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo hat
  Standhaftigkeit, ich aber habe Standhaftigkeit; nicht einmal Alaro
  Kalamo hat Einsicht, ich aber habe Einsicht; nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo
  hat Selbstvertiefung, ich aber habe Selbstvertiefung; nicht einmal
  Alaro Kalamo hat Weisheit, ich aber habe Weisheit.

"(...) not even Alaro Kalamo has faith/conviction, but I have; not even Alaro Kalamo has persistence, but I have (...)"

Palikanon.com, MN26, Kay Zumwinkel

  "Ich erwog: 'Nicht nur Āḷāra Kālāma hat Vertrauen, Energie,
  Achtsamkeit, Konzentration und Weisheit. Auch ich habe Vertrauen,
  Energie, Achtsamkeit, Konzentration und Weisheit.

"(...) not only Alaro Kalamo has faith/conviction, persistence, mindfulness... Also I have faith/conviction, persistence, mindfulness... (...)"

Access to Insight, MN 26, Thanissaro Bhikku

  "I thought: 'Not only does Alara Kalama have conviction, persistence,
  mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction,
  persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment.(...)

Palikanon.com, MN26, Pali
(I hope I managed to extract the correct, relevant record below.... )

  Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi –
  ‘na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi saddhā, mayhaṃpatthi saddhā;
   na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi vīriyaṃ, mayhaṃpatthi vīriyaṃ;
   na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi sati, mayhaṃpatthi sati;
   na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi samādhi, mayhaṃpatthi samādhi;
   na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi paññā, mayhaṃpatthi paññā.
      (...)

(If in fact that is the relevant Pali-expression, then at least the form <something> kalama, <something> me seems to be preserved by the translation of K.E. Neumann as far as I can regognize the pattern of sentences)

Either is technically possible, I think, but only one makes sense in the context. Here eva in āḷārasseva means "only", not "even", since we know that āḷāra indeed has faith, etc., according to the passage prior to this:

tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi — ‘na kho āḷāro kālāmo imaṃ dhammaṃ kevalaṃ saddhāmattakena sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharāmīti pavedeti; addhā āḷāro kālāmo imaṃ dhammaṃ jānaṃ passaṃ viharatī’ti.
"At that, monks, it came to me thus: 'not indeed by faith alone does āḷāra kālāma declare this dhamma in its entirety thus: "having known for myself with higher knowledge I dwell having attained it". Indeed, āḷāra kālāma dwells having known and seen this dhamma."

So the context implies that indeed he does have the faith, etc., he's just not alone in having that faith, etc..
Also, if it was going to be "but I have faith...", we would expect mayhaṃ pana rather than mayhaṃpi (mayhaṃpatthi = mayhaṃ+pi+atthi), since pi generally means "and, also", and not usually "but".


Finding Authentic Suttas Is there some website or book somewhere that lists suttas on different criteria like what suttas are more core or more likely to be authentic do to scholarly analysis like comparing Chinese translations or other ways of analysis...that brings me to another question. What are the different ways scholars can find clues or evidence of a sutta's authenticity?

Traditionally, the criteria for teaching authenticity are:

it must not contradict the observable facts and laws of nature,
it must not contradict commonly recognized moral rules,
it should lead to letting go, cooling down, emancipation, liberation,
it should be traceable to a remark made in the suttas, preferably in multiple places.