Jainism vs Buddhism: did Buddhism borrow from Jainism?

There are very strong similarities between Buddhism and Jainism but there are also a number of major differences as well.

It is very true that Buddhism and Jainism use a lot of very similar terminology, but these are mostly terms that were floating around among the Shramanas (ascetics) for some time. Karma, rebirth, the goal as escape from rebirth. etc... were ideas that were not unique to either Buddhism or Jainism but were held by many different groups of ascetics. For example, the Ajivaka school taught very similar things on these points as well. The general terminology of rebirth and karma was a general part of the Indian ascetic tradition as a whole, rather than just Jainism.

However, when you look at how these concepts are actually understood in Jainism and Buddhism you find there are major differences. It seems that the Buddha borrowed existing terminology but gave it radically new meanings. The best example I can think of is in the Buddha's understanding of Karma compared with the Jain understanding of Karma.

The Jains (according to my knowledge) think of Karma as being some sort of subtle substance that sticks to one's Jiva, or soul. The Jiva is bound to a physical body, and as a result becomes loaded up with Karma, which weights it down and interferes with one's spiritual understanding. When one dies the kind of Karma stuck to your Jiva determines your rebirth. Through ethical living you can stop more karma from being accumulated and through ascetic practice you can 'burn up' the karma stuck to your soul, and if you can get rid of all of it, you become enlightened, and will then be reborn into a special heaven without a physical body where you will be just a Jiva and will stay that way forever.

The Buddha rejected the idea that Karma is any sort of substance and rejected any kind of soul or self as well. To the Buddha, Karma refers to an action with mental intention. The Buddha said this in many places, saying "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." and in several Suttas the Buddha spoke out against the Nigantha's (that's what the Jains were called at that time) understanding of Karma.


It seems pretty clear to me that your mind is divided. There is a conflict between a superficial mind and a deep mind. The superficial side is the hunting dog mind that gets excited about ideas it gets from the world of people: "Oh! I should exercise!", "Oh! I should meditate", "Oh! They say this would be good for me!", "Oh! They say this is the right thing to strive for!". While the deep mind is not so gullible and does not want to run around like a hunting dog chasing pigeons. As a result of that, you get this sense of fighting between something you think you "should" do on one hand, and not really feeling like doing it, on the other.

This happens when we lose touch with our deeper mind and identify with the superficial. In fact, our deeper mind is always the closest, but we tend to learn to suppress it. Nevertheless, it makes its presence felt by resisting the efforts of superficial mind. Good news is, the fact that it can resist so well, means that it is strong - despite you not giving it a chance to live and express itself.

What my teacher recommended in this case, is to take a step back and see at what point you have alienated a part of yourself. What usually happens is, we want to get something we really want (a job, a girlfriend, a particular place of living), that happens to be incompatible with the deep part of ourselves. At this point we make a deal with our deep mind and ask it to step aside and shut-up for a while, which it kindly does out of its spirit of all-acceptance that is its main characteristic. Deep mind is a mind of great love. So it agrees to step aside, like a good dog, or a favorite childhood toy, or a magic creature from the fairy-tale which used to be our best friend and now gets completely forgotten. The compromise grows and grows, until our life turns into a city without [dogs|toys|magic], but the feeling of something missing remains, and something forgotten reminds of itself through that resistance and doubts.

What my teacher recommended in this case is to sit down and ask yourself: "what do I want?", "what do I really-really want, that I had put aside and forgotten?" - getting into this mood of asking yourself what you want helps re-unite with the deep mind. There is nothing better than getting it back. It is like getting your life back. From that point on it becomes a matter of cultivating this "being truly yourself" mind until it grows strong again. Cultivating deep mind is cultivating energy of your spontaneous fundamental goodness, your own spontaneous Buddha nature, that always knows what's right.

The truth is, you don't have to meditate. You don't have to run. Running was meant to be a way to refresh your body and stir the energy, not a way to torture yourself. So ask your deep mind, and listen to your body - it will tell you how it wants to refresh its energy. Same with meditation. It was meant to be a way to experience peace, to experience suchness - with no judgement, no pressure to reach some target state, to come back to your deep mind - and instead we are turning it into its opposite, some sort of dukkha-hell.

Makes sense? It's a matter of switching perspective. When you get the right perspective, you start working towards the peace of being fully yourself, instead of endlessly frustrating yourself with superficial conflict. It may be scary at first, to be authentically yourself, and may lead to changes in your life situation - and to temporary trouble - but it is endlessly better than trying to do something you don't really believe in.


The way I was taught Buddhism: identifying oneself with anything is a fetter. Self-identification is a form of clinging, and as such it inherently leads to conflict between "this" and "that", hence suffering.

Ego is a box made of stuff we identify with. Ego is not just being selfish, it is what makes us tremendously vulnerable.

Externally, avoid defining yourself, except jokingly or if required by circumstances. Internally, have no idea who you really are.

Do not identify yourself as Theravada, Mahayana, Democrat, Republican, Russian, Ukrainian, Man, Woman, Buddhist, Programmer, Human, or Spontaneously
Self-Existing
Luminous
Unity
of Emptiness
and Form.

  Thus, to all dharmas not getting stuck, not getting caught into traps of abstractions (aniketacari), not clinging -- he attains Awakening of the Lucky Ones.


What are some Buddhist ininterpretations of claims of past-life memories?

An answer to this question is in the Khajjanīya Sutta. The Khajjanīya Sutta explains life is comprised of five aggregates, namely: (i) body; (ii) feelings; (iii) perceptions; (iv) mental formations; & (v) sense consciousness. Mental stories about so-called or imaginary 'past lives' are 'mental formations', similar to dreams the mind constructs or manufactures in sleep.

The Khajjanīya Sutta states 'mental formations' about the past should be interpreted as follows:

  Any kind of mental formations whatsoever … whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
  far or near, all mental formations should be seen as it really is with
  correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my
  self.’

As for 'rebirth', the Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta explains 'birth' ('jati') is the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta').

SN 5.10 explains that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought' (which are mental formations), there are no 'beings' to be found. SN 5.10 also states the idea of a 'being' (or 'soul') is a view held by Mara (Satan).

It follows, as explained in SN 22.85, each time the mind gives birth to the 'self' idea & believes it is a 'self', that is 'birth' ('jati'). To quote:

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes the body,
  feeling, perception, mental fabrication &/or consciousness to be a
  'self'. That assumption (of 'self') is a fabrication. Now what is the
  cause, what is the origination, what is the birth (jati), what is the
  coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication (of 'self') is born
  of that.

If the 'self' fabrication keeps arising in the mind, each new fabrication of the 'self' idea is a new 'becoming', a new birth or 'rebirth'.

Most importantly, regardless of how the words 'birth' ('jati') & the myriad terms translated as 'rebirth' are interpreted, the most salient feature of Buddhist rebirth is it is always connected to the results of kamma (actions), i.e., productive of happiness ('heaven') & unhappiness ('hell'). To quote a stock phrase:

  'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech &
  mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
  under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
  after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'

Unlike the Hindu reincarnation found in the Bhagavada Gita, which states the soul (atman) will always enter a new physical body at death, the idea of 'rebirth' in Buddhism is always connected to the results of kamma or moral efficiency.

Therefore, in Buddhism, unlike Hinduism & unlike the heretical branches of Judaism, 'rebirth' in Buddhism is not 'meta-physics' but, instead, 'morality' about results of kamma.

In other words, even Buddhists that do not believe in life after death still must believe in 'results of kamma' or 'moral rebirth' in order to have right view.

The language used in the Pali scriptures accommodates both views about 'rebirth' since terms such as 'beings' ('satta'), 'death' ('marana'), 'body' ('kaya'), etc, have dual meanings.

As previously stated & quoted, in the older Pali suttas, the predominant view about 'rebirth' is good kamma leads to 'heaven' & bad kamma leads to 'hell'. It seems only in later teachings did the idea of returning as a human being start.

In general, Buddhism teaches all things whatsoever are 'not-self' or, if using Hindu terminology, 'not-soul' ('anatta'). Therefore, Buddhism is contrary to Hindu & later-day-Jewish ideas about transmigration of souls. The Jewish Encyclopedia states:

  'Transmigration' of souls (metempsychosis)...This doctrine was foreign to Judaism until about the eighth century, when, under the
  influence of the Mohammedan mystics,  it was adopted by the Karaites and other Jewish dissenters.

As for the pseudo-science of  Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker, since their claims arise from the studies of literally few children from billions, their claims can be debunked with explanations such as: (i) the child was conditioned by is parents; (ii) the child has a mental disposition or psychic power that can absorbs external ideas; and (iii) mystics with psychic powers are controlling the mind of the child.

For example, the failure of many so-called reincarnate Tibetan lamas, such as Tenzin Ösel Hita, shows such ideas about the reincarnation of souls are spurious or tenuous. In the case of Ösel Hita, it seemed to be not 'transmigration' but child abuse. To quote Ösel Hita:

  "At 14 months I was recognized and taken to India. They dressed me in a yellow hat, they sat me on a throne, people worshipped me ... They
  took me away from my family and put me in a medieval situation in
  which I suffered a lot. It was like living a lie."

If we all were really reincarnated souls then we would all remember our past lives or we would all be born with knowledge & experience from our past lives. But, unfortunately, we are all born ignorant, like a blank slate with some natural instincts, and we all must learn how to live & survive in life, as though we all started out anew & fresh.

Some translators of old Buddhist scriptures use the word "transmigration" but this is just a mistranslation.

Similar to the Jewish dissenters, later-day Buddhists created many ideas about reincarnation & even ideas about how 'consciousness' (which is mere sense cognition) is reborn, which probably explains why Buddhism become extinct in India, since it became the same as Hinduism.

Even in the Pali suttas, there are maybe a dozen suttas from thousands (such as the Chariot Maker sutta) that state the Buddha had a literal past life. These suttas are questionable as to their authenticity given they contradict the Khajjanīya Sutta.

In summary, original Buddhism taught the idea of 'self' is merely a mental formation/fabrication born from ignorance and that, in ultimate reality, there is no 'self' to be found. Therefore, the idea that 'my soul transmigrated' or the idea that "I" had a past life is contrary to original Buddhism.


Every inside has an outside.  Can you truly say that one has hunger because of only things outside without anything on the inside?  Can a rock be hungry?  Can the vacuum of space be hungry?  There must be something on the inside which is part of hunger, or else it is a thing which is experienced by every part of existence equally.

On the other side, can an action occur without an actor?  If not, and you cannot do something, then no action can occur.

Of course, these are not to say that hunger does not exist, nor that one cannot act.  They merely point out that there are fundamental limits of understanding when one starts from the assumption that things are either completely outside or completely inside.

Phrasings like "I am hungry with my body" and "I act with the world around me" may be worth considering.  They have their flaws too, but they are complementary flaws.


Buddhism teaches what is commonly called the human life form is comprised of five aggregates (SN 22.48; SN 22.22), namely, body, feelings (of pleasantness, unpleasantness & in-between), perceptions, mental formations (such as emotions & thinking) and consciousness via the six senses.
Buddhism teaches what is commonly called "the self" is merely a product of thinking and conditioning (SN 22.81) and is not ultimately real and is merely the manifesting of suffering (SN 5.10). Therefore, Buddhism teaches the five aggregates are "not-self" ("anatta"; SN 22.59).
Buddhism says anatta (not-self) is only the true nature of things but is also the understanding that leads to the ending of suffering because, according to the 1st Noble Truth (SN 56.11) all suffering is caused by the mind possessively clinging/attaching to things (the five aggregates; SN 56.11), both internally & externally, as "I", "me", "mine" and "self" (SN 22.1).
The sole purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to mitigate and end suffering (MN 22 paragraph 56). Here, it is taught nothing whatsoever should be attached to (as "I" & "mine"; MN 37).
In Hinduism, when it is taught "everything is an illusion", the purpose of this teaching is also to end suffering and made the mind feel more free & unattached.
In summary, Buddhism believes if you can live according to the Noble Eightfold Path you can live a life that is free from suffering.


For what reason did Dharmakirti argue that absences are conceptual constructions?

Say you walk into a room and look around and think to yourself, "Ah, this room has no elephant in it!"

The absence of an elephant in that very room is an object of knowledge. It can be known by a valid mind that there is - in fact - no elephant in that room. Since the absence is an object of knowledge it can be said to exist. So how does it exist? In order to answer this, back up and look at how it was known.

The absence of an elephant in that room was known merely by conception and inference on the valid basis of failing to perceive any elephant in that room and depending upon the thought which knew it. It is not a real, essential or inherent absence. How can we know this with certainty? Because if the absence of an elephant were real, essential or inherent, then everyone walking into that room would know that absence and think to themselves, "Ah, this room has no elephant in it!" which plainly does not happen. Moreover, it would be impossible for someone to - at any of the three times - walk an elephant into that room. If someone were to walk an elephant into that room, then this would annihilate the absence. But inherent things cannot be annihilated otherwise they would depend upon something else. Moreover, the absence of that elephant - were it inherent - would not depend upon anything at all.

No, the absence of an elephant in that room exists conceptually, dependently, relatively, in an illusory-like way without even a shred of inherent existence at all. In the same way, were someone to walk an elephant into that room, then that elephant would exist conceptually, dependently, relatively, in an illusory-like way without even a shred of inherent existence at all as would the "absence of the absence of an elephant."

This refutes real Abhava along the lines of what Dharmakirti might employ and is in agreement with Madhyamaka's like Nagarjuna. However, Dharmakirti was not a self-identified Madhyamaka per se and had some apparent disagreement with other points of doctrine, but on this point I think they agree.

If you are talking about Apoha, well that is related but different. That is getting into the epistemology of how nominal things are known from real and inherent - but unconceivable - entities. The upshot is that Madhayamaka's like Nagarjuna had apparent disagreement with Dharmakirti on this point in so far as Madhyamaka's like Nagarjuna did not think that anything at all was real or inherent even if inconceivable.

Hope this helps!


Does Zen distinguish between concentration and insight meditation?

I'm far from an expert and even more far from knowing all the technical words, but I sit in Soto tradition.

As @enenalan already mentioned, Soto has a more shamatha approach, called shinkantaza, or just sitting. (@enealan: there is your answer, even if I just acknowledged to not answer another answer ;-) )

The meditation in Soto, at least in the tradition of my lineage, is an aimless meditation. It is not only aimless in terms of no insight, no solving koans, no tinkering with truth and such stuff, but also in terms of not meditating for any benefit. We are not supposed to sit to become better people, get insight, be calmer or whatsoever.

While you are in (Soto-)Meditation, you are supposed to watch or notice [was: examine, see comment] our mind. Therefore there is a component of insight. But we should do so as a spectator, not as a judge. The insight comes naturally, over time, and is a side-effect and not thought to be the goal of the practice.

On the other hand, to stay focused, not to let your thoughts wandering, not to start daydreaming or become sleepy. To watch and not not judge our thoughts, how they emerge and vanish, requires a huge amount of concentration.

As a Conclusion: Soto knows (as far as I am Soto) only on kind of meditation, and that covers the concentration aspect. Insight grows over time naturally and is not active fostered during meditation.


Is a belief in rebirth a necessity for Buddhist practice?

No tradition, except maybe Secular Buddhism, rejects literal rebirth, it is a core part of the dhamma. I will say though that there is evidence the Buddha was never " believe in rebirth or else."

Probably the most famous Sutta for Western Buddhism is also the most over rated, misquoted and misunderstood. That being the Kalama Sutta. It is most famous for its paragraph talking about not going by reports or because someone says something.

What is much more profound, and more important imo, is the lesser known section towards the bottom of the sutta, where the Buddha says... ok what IF there is no rebirth and kamma..

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

  "So it is, Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. One who is a
  disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free
  from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the
  here-&-now:

  "'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions
  rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the
  break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good
  destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he
  acquires.

  "'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look
  after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free
  from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires."

Now does the Buddha in multiple places basically say that believing there is no next world, no fruit, etc, is wrong view? yes he does, but as you can see he is never " thou shalt believe in rebirth... or else!" He is much more focused on your practice here and now bringing benefits and teaches to the level of the person, from basic generosity and giving up to kamma. I think that western people today get really hung up on intellectual pondering regarding topics like rebirth when they should be practicing, here and now is the most important place and time, in this precious human birth, where we can practice dhamma and free ourselves.

As far as a quick personal addition to this if I am allowed. I am a practicing Buddhist, have been for 6 years. I'm also close to getting on the path to renunciation and becoming a monk. I cannot say I BELIEVE in rebirth and that has never been a hindrance to me in Theravada. No monk has scolded me,judged me, or held me back in any way.

I am an agnostic and keep an open mind. I have also through my practice proven the Buddha to be dead on accurate about many things, so at this point I have enough confidence and faith in the dhamma to say "hmm.. if the Buddha was right about all this.. why not that?".


Observing hindrances & seeing impermanence vs right effort

Val, hindrences have to be overcome by right effort and phenomenas, as they really are, can then be observed on a more refined level, a level that is then not so much subject of defilements. Right effort is required to build upon the foundations to errect the whole path and serves as entrance upon the Samadhi section and at the same time connects the other single elements of wheel so that it might beginn to roll for an end of suffering.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."
— MN 117

There is no such as right concentration if there is not also the factor of right effort involved:

"Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."
— MN 117

The single factors are not to be seen as being abound once reaching a certain but as a coming together of all, like the single supports of a wooden wheel.
Of what is finally right effort on even the most subtile levels on knows after the gain of path and fruit.
Just this right effort, in simply ways taught by the Buddha to his son will bring one to the final liberation and to develope all needed factors.

"Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bharadvaja. If one didn't make an exertion, one wouldn't finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth."...

So get up, dreamer, and go for an initiative!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


How to reconcile non-attachment in a Type-A, North American culture where work is life?

Firstly, I am very much against this pop-culture Buddhism where too much emphasis is given to letting go and not that much emphasis on Bhavana and development of wholesome qualities. Letting go of what, exactly? Definitely, check out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's talks on YouTube who shares a similar opinion. There are many things which we need to let go: anger, jealousy, rage, covetousness, stinginess, delusion etc. There are many things we need to develop or "acquire": Metta, Compassion, Euqanimity, Mindfulness, Patience, Humility, Wisdom etc. Knowing which qualities are wholesome and developing them and which are unwholesome and letting go of them is practical wisdom.

Why does achievement need to be egoistic? Why not process and vision driven? We can always frame "achievements" as something bringing long term happiness to ourselves and the people around us instead of something "I" have added to my shining Resume. If that is the case, then no need to hesitate in pouring our energies into it; unless you realise later that this is not really the case.

A very interesting Theravada list is the four Iddhipada (four bases of mental power) cultivated for success in spiritual practice but equally applies in lay achievements. They are Chanda (Desire or Aspiration), Viriya (Energy), Citta (Keeping the Goal in mind), Vimansa (Review or Investigation of results to adjust). So, the Buddha is not against being competent, efficient and energetic in achieving your goals. Quite the opposite, he encourages it.

Also, don't worry about ego too much. Even third path Anagamis have conceit. It is a very deep fetter. So, don't be too worried about it as long as you are aware of it. Even, Ananda the Buddha's attendant once mentioned that we use conceit to overcome conceit (for example to be regular in practice), and moderation in eating to overcome sense desire. Otherwise, you would be going to the extreme of self mortification, which is ignoble and of little benefit.

Hope, this helps.


Where did the Buddha say that the minor rules for monks could be ignored?

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

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

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

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

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

(source)

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

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

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

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

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


What are the main differences between the different Zen schools?

The most important differences between the two schools have to do with their style of meditation and ideas surrounding the attainment of enlightenment.  Soto takes a more gradual approach - kind of like a flower opening.  Just like a flower coming into bloom, it makes no sense to force anything.  Under the right conditions, and when cultivating tenderly, the mind will open of its own accord.

Conversely, Rinzai puts more emphasis on the possibility of sudden enlightenment.  One of the easiest ways to consider how koans work in this process is to think of samsara like a brick wall.  Investigating koans is like knocking a brick out.  A certain amount of light shines through once you see into an individuals koan's 'meaning'.  Eventually, like a brick wall, once you knock enough bricks out, the whole thing just suddenly collapses.  It's kinda like going broke - it happens gradually and then suddenly!  ;-)

Of course, a lot of Zen schools do incorporate elements of both practices.  Sometimes, a school with a more Soto emphasis may assign a student a koan.  It might also go the other way too, but that hasn't been my experience.


Is enlightened cognition more than its parts?

Mahayana-Nagarjuna philosophy states everything is conditioned & comprised of parts. Original Buddhism does not. The impression is your question arises because of illogical philosophy, which makes the philosophy sound contradictory to you. The original Buddha was fully enlightened thus explained reality without flawed description. Enlightenment leads to the permanent end of suffering. Since enlightenment 'uproots' the causes of suffering, there is no longer spiritual work to do. So the 'parts' either end (in redundancy) or, otherwise, are permanently established.


Theravada buddhism and Mahayana buddhism

The main difference I'm aware of is that the Therevada school is focused on seeking Enlightenment for the individual. The Mahayana school is focused on seeking Enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.

If I remember correctly, for those who believe in the literal Western interpretation of reincarnation, according to the Therevada school, when someone attains Enlightenment they will cease worldly rebirth. Alternatively, the Mahayana school believes that a fully-awakened buddha can choose to be reborn, and even choose their rebirths.

From my understanding, there are a lot of other differences--many of them relating to monastic life.


Discernment vs. judgement in the labeling meditation

I guess the big difference between mentally noting vs judging what you are experiencing is the degree of objectivity. Noting helps you to perceive your experiences with clarity, which should in turn allow you to gain wisdom through insight into the nature of all experiences/phenomena. For example, if you are experiencing sadness and you note, "sad" you remain impartial. In this way, you clearly observe and experience the feeling of sadness. Your field of experiential perception remains unhindered by inner conflict (reacting to the sadness, rather than just noting it) and you are able to understand the ultimate reality of your sadness. This, applied to all experiences, should also allow you to develop equanimity, one of the seven factors of enlightenment.

Conversely, if you experience sadness and mentally oppose the sadness, you fail to remain objective through your experience and hinder your ability to perceive and learn about/come to understand your experience. This obviously prevents equanimity but, perhaps more importantly, prevents one from clear comprehension of events (such as a sad state of mind) and thus prevents insight into the nature of such events.

So, the "mental-labeling" technique, as described by the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, is actually intended (and more likely than not) to help one become LESS judgmental to oneself and others.

/\


When you see The Light (according to textual sources)

I don't think it's described as a "feeling", nor even exactly as a "sight", in the Pali suttas.

The most famous description might, I guess, be from Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search (MN 26), translated as follows, describing the Buddha's own enlightenment:

  "In search of what might be skillful, seeking the unexcelled state of sublime peace, I wandered by stages in the Magadhan country and came to the military town of Uruvela. There I saw some delightful countryside, with an inspiring forest grove, a clear-flowing river with fine, delightful banks, and villages for alms-going on all sides. The thought occurred to me: 'How delightful is this countryside, with its inspiring forest grove, clear-flowing river with fine, delightful banks, and villages for alms-going on all sides. This is just right for the exertion of a clansman intent on exertion.' So I sat down right there, thinking, 'This is just right for exertion.'

  "Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

  "Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. [3] But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.

So it's described as an arising of "knowledge and vision".

This version is very slightly different:

  Knowledge and vision arose in me:
  Ñāṇañca pana me dassanaṃ udapādi:

  ‘My freedom is unshakable; this is my last rebirth; now there are no more future lives.’
  ‘akuppā me vimutti, ayamantimā jāti, natthi dāni punabbhavo’ti.

Maybe that (difference between "unprovoked" and "unshakeable") is in how akuppā is translated.

See also:

Definitions for dassana
Definitions for ñāṇa

The definition for dassana includes,

  in combination ñāṇa-dassana either “knowing & seeing,” or perhaps “the insight arising from knowledge,” perfect knowledge, realization of the truth, wisdom

... so perhaps not literally "sight", but rather "insight".

("Right View" i.e. samma ditthi isn't mentioned here, but that's another example of the dhamma using a word for sight, i.e. view, in a not-quite literal way -- to mean something like "insight" or something seen or formed by the mind, rather than seen by the eye).

There's a more detailed description given in this formula: Knowledge of the destruction of the āsavas

I won't quote it here because it's better to see the original page (i.e. follow the hyperlink). All the words on that page are linked to dictionary definitions, if you hover over the word with a mouse.

Note that "enlightenment" and "see the light" are Western or European, English-language, expressions or idioms. Wikipedia's Enlightenment in Buddhism says,

  The English term enlightenment is the western translation of the term bodhi, "awakening", which was popularised in the Western world through the 19th century translations of Max Müller. It has the western connotation of a sudden insight into a transcendental truth.

  The term is also being used to translate several other Buddhist terms and concepts used to denote insight (prajna, kensho and satori); knowledge (vidhya); the "blowing out" (Nirvana) of disturbing emotions and desires and the subsequent freedom or release (vimutti); and the attainment of Buddhahood, as exemplified by Gautama Buddha.

  What exactly constituted the Buddha's awakening is unknown. It may probably have involved the knowledge that liberation was attained by the combination of mindfulness and dhyāna, applied to the understanding of the arising and ceasing of craving. The relation between dhyana and insight is a core problem in the study of Buddhism, and is one of the fundamentals of Buddhist practice.

I expect there are other descriptions, in the suttas, and in other sources (other than the suttas, perhaps other schools/traditions of Buddhism); I think though this is the most famous description in the suttas.

And there are other descriptions, of what enlightenment is; of what the Tathagata is or isn't like, after enlightenment; and of the path[s] to enlightenment.


Is it only humans who can understand Buddhism?

Actually, the restriction has nothing to do with being a human; it has, as the Visuddhimagga notes, everything to do with the rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi). Nor does it relate to "understanding Buddhism" per se, but rather attainment of samatha jhana and nibbana. Only a being who is reborn with all three of the wholesome roots - non-delusion (amoha), non-greed (alobha), and non-anger (adosa) can attain absorption (jhana), the path (magga) or fruition (phala).

Types of beings that may be born with these three roots are humans, angels (deva) and gods (brahma). Animals, ghosts and hell beings are not.

For more information, here's a good summary of the types of rebirth based on number of roots:

http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/abhidhamma-in-daily-life_2/d/doc3181.html


Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?

The Theravada accepts the Jataka stories as commentarial literature; they are not canonical, but are considered a reliable account by a learned Buddhist scholar. What are canonical are the verses that accompany the stories, as that is how 547 of the latter were easily remembered. Number of verses per varies; some have a single verse, others have over 100, I think.

It's not uncommon for modern Theravada Buddhists to question the authenticity of the stories, especially given their often fantastical content. Probably, though, it is more common for Theravada Buddhists to accept the stories far more at face value than they really should, again given their content.


Is this an accurate introduction to different paths and traditions?

Is that one Path the same (or basically the same) as The Visuddhimagga
  which Wikipedia says is "the 'great treatise' on Theravada Buddhist
  doctrine written by Buddhaghosa approximately in 430 CE in Sri Lanka"?

The Visuddhimagga is the name of a book, and when traditions talk about a path of purification, they aren't using the term to refer to the title of this book, but just as a general term meaning a means of purification. I don't think that the other traditions even had access to the Visuddhimagga prior to modern times.

  When I've read elementary/contemporary/English-language introductions
  to various schools (e.g. Zen Flesh Zen Bones for zen), or visited a
  Chinese-in-Canada Mahayana temple, or dimly remember a Westerner
  writing a century or more ago about Tibetan/Mongolian beliefs and
  practices, they seem to have little in common with each other: e.g.
  Zen seems to be about being spontaneous or 'original', Chinese about
  things being better in the Pure Land, Tibetan about the cycle of
  rebirth.

All of these traditions are very vast systems of teaching and practice, and they all use very different terminology, and some traditions emphasize certain points while others might not emphasize a particular point, but that doesn't mean that they reject them. Just because these teachings are held in common between all traditions doesn't mean that they describe them using the same terms, or even teach them in an explicit manner. Take Zen Buddhism for example. For the past 1000 years, the main slogan of the Zen school has been "See mind, become Buddha" meaning that the practice is to see the nature of the mind and as a result one becomes enlightened. This terminology is very different from how the Theravada tradition would describe it, as the Theravada school would give a quote like this:

  "What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"

  "Inconstant, lord."

  "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

  "Stressful, lord."

  "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
  change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

  "No, lord."

  ...

  Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
  disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the
  knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
  holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
  world.

But this difference of expression doesn't preclude the existence of things in common. Both of these explanations present enlightenment as the result of seeing the nature of something, even though the language and style may be very different. Tibetan Buddhism holds to the same position as well, saying that enlightenment results from gaining a non-conceptual realization of the emptiness of all phenomena. Pureland Buddhism hold on to these teachings as well, but sees the appropriate time for actually practicing such things to be after one is reborn into the Pureland, and even that is only one interpretation of Pureland Buddhism. Chinese Buddhism fuses Zen and Pureland practices together for example.

There are real differences between the traditions, I'm not saying that there aren't. However, all schools of Buddhism hold on to this set of common teachings, even though they differ in their interpretations and their importance.


What is a "sutta statement" or "sutta action"?

The Sutta Pitaka deals with conventional reality, i.e. concepts such as "a man, woman, person, a wisher" etc.

The Abhidhamma Pitaka deals with ultimate reality, i.e. Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana. These are "abhidhamma terms".

Here is a quote on Abhidhamma by Ven. K. Sri. Dhammanda, p. 107-108:

  "The Abhidharma deals with realities existing in the ultimate sense, or paramattha dhamma in Pali. There are four such realities:

  1. Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as ‘that which knows or experiences’ an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of consciousness.

  2. Cetasika, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the citta.

  3. Rupa, physical phenomenon or material form.

  4. Nirvana, the unconditioned state of bliss which is the final
  goal.

  Citta, the cetasika, and rupa are conditioned realities. They arise because of conditions, and will disappear when the conditions sustaining them cease to continue to do so. They are impermanent states. Nirvana, on the other hand, is an unconditioned reality. It does not arise and, therefore, does not fall away. These four realities can be experienced regardless of the names we may choose to give them. Other than these realities, everything—be they within ourselves or without, whether in the past, present or future, whether coarse or subtle, low or lofty, far or near—is a concept and not the ultimate reality."


What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva?

Precepts serve two purposes:
Purpose One is training the mind by changing your behavioral/emotional habits.
Purpose Two is improving one's karma by not creating turmoil in one's future that comes from the misdeeds.
In the long run One and Two help each other to get stronger. Together they gradually propel one further and further into Liberation.
Even if you take a liberal interpretation of the precepts you will train your mind and improve your karma.
In any case you should start from the most coarse offenses creating the biggest problems before proceeding to the subtle mental habits and misdeeds creating more subtle forms of trouble and suffering.
For example, being easily irritated and getting into fights all the time is a source of coarser and more obvious problems than killing mosquitoes or eating chicken and fish. So you should start with the first.
For example, craving sex to the point of rapping someone or seducing someone's spouse and breaking their family is a source of far coarser and more obvious problems than indulging in observing people of the opposite gender at a beach, so again it makes sense to start with the coarser one.
For example having a fragile ego and pathologically lying to cover up one's mistakes is a source of coarser and more obvious problems than not phrasing one's statements precisely enough to make sure they are absolutely true.
And as you correctly assumed, having a complex emotional trauma leading to a drug or an alcohol addiction is a source of much coarser and more obvious trouble than intoxicating one's mind with videogames, not to speak of indulging in an occasional beer.
From this it should be obvious that Buddhist path should be approached from coarse to gradually more subtle - by anyone and everyone, monk or lay.
If you think about it, the Eightfold Path gets into more subtle matters than mere Five Precepts, and the Four Jhanas get into more subtle matters than the Eightfold Path (i know they are included but you get the point). Within the four jhanas, the first jhana deals with coarse issues the second is more subtle etc. Entire Path is structured like that.
Obviously, someone who professionally pursues Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi is more likely to go all the way to perfection of practice, while someone engaging with Buddhism casually among other things will probably stop at preventing the most obvious troubles. How far to go is entirely up to an individual. The benefit is proportional to implementation, to whatever degree one eradicates potential causes of dukkha - to that degree one is liberated from it.
To summarize, it's not about liberal vs strict implementation of precepts, it's about coarse vs subtle causes of dukkha - similar concepts but not the same.


If A is killed by B due to A's past karma of killing B, will B suffer from this karma of killing A?

Killing someone is an act that is accomplished by many thought processes. A single thought process can have a maximum of 17 cittas. Among them, the cittas 9 to 15 are called the Javana cittas. They are the ones responsible for creating Karma.

   Thought-Process

  1. The subject, the consciousness, receives objects from within and without. When a person is in a state of profound sleep his mind is
  said to be vacant, or, in other words, in a state of bhavanga. We
  always experience such a passive state when our minds do not respond
  to external objects. This flow of bhavanga is interrupted when objects
  enter the mind.

  2. Then the bhavanga consciousness vibrates for one
  thought-moment and passes away.

  3. A bhavanga that cuts off the flow (bhavanga upaccheda).

  4. Thereupon the sense-door consciousness (pañca-dvārāvajjana)
  arises and ceases. At this stage the natural flow is checked and is
  turned towards the object.
  5. Immediately after there arises and ceases the eye consciousness* (cakkhu viññāna), but yet knows no more about it.
  6. This sense operation is followed by a moment of reception of the object so seen (sampaticchana).
  7. Next comes the investigating faculty (santīrana) or a momentary examination of the object so received.
  8. After this comes that stage of representative cognition termed the determining consciousness (votthapana). Discrimination is
  exercised at this stage. Free Will plays its part here.

  9 to 15.  Immediately after there arises the psychologically most important stage - Impulsion or javana. It is at this stage that an
  action is judged whether moral or immoral. Kamma is performed at this
  stage; if viewed rightly (yoniso manasikāra), the javana becomes
  moral; if viewed wrongly (ayoniso manasikāra), it becomes immoral. In
  the case of an Arahat this javana is neither moral nor immoral, but
  merely functional (kiriya). This javana stage usually lasts for seven
  thought moments, or, at times of death, five.

  16 to 17. The whole process which happens in an infinitesimal part of time ends with the registering consciousness (tadālambana), lasting
  for two thought-moments - thus completing one thought-process at the
  expiration of seventeen thought-moments.

Each of the Javana Cittas are Karmically potent. They come into fruitions at different times.

1. Immediately effective kamma (dittha-dhamma-vedaniya kamma)

kamma which produces its results in the present life.

Among the seven javana cittas, the first, or the weakest javana-citta called the dittha-dhamma-vedaniya - produces its effects in the present life. Because it's the weakest kamma, it is unable to produce results past the current life.

If this kamma is performed in this present life and does meet the opportunity to ripen , it will give the result in the same existence. Otherwise, the effect becomes defunct.

2. Subsequently effective kamma (upapajja-vedaniya kamma )

kamma which produces its effects in the nearest next life.

Among the seven javana process, this is the seventh one.The second weakest of the javana cittas, - called upapajja-vedaniya kamma.

3. indefinitely effective kamma  ( aparā-pariya-vedaniya kamma)

kamma which produces its effects in lives subsequent to nearest next life.

It can ripen at any time whenever it has opportunity to produce the results from the second future existence onwards as long as the round of rebirths continues. It never becomes defunct until it comes to fruition.

4. defunct  kamma (ahosi kamma)

kamma which is ineffective.

The kamma that is unable to produce its results are called ahosi-kamma.

If immediately effective kamma (dittha-dhamma-vedaniya kamma), for example, is unable to operate in this life, and if the subsequently effective kamma (upapajja-vedaniya kamma) does not operated in the second birth or next life, they are ahosi-kamma.

In the case of Arahants, all their accumulated good or bad kamma from the past which was due to ripen in the future lives become defunct with their enlightenment.

Since killing a person involves so many thought processes, it doesn't end just because the Karma of one of the Javana cittas of one thought process comes into fruition. Chances are that one is going to pay for the Javana cittas in the multitudes of thought processes involved with the killing, from time to time in Samsara. So getting killed once in a future life is not likely to complete all results of the Karmas one accumulates in an act of killing.

If person B kills person A in next life, it won't be a new karma for person A as the fruit is never a Karma. However it will become a new Karma for person B. Because B is not the one facing the result. He's a different person creating a fresh Karma.


Did the Buddha have advice about dealing with social anxiety?

Anxiety from loneliness is overcome with concentration; with developing calmness.

Anxiety from worries about social conformity is overcome with clearly understanding of right & wrong, i.e. morality.

The Dhammapada says, for example:

  Those who are ashamed of what they should not be ashamed of, and are not ashamed of what they should be ashamed of — upholding false
  views, they go to states of woe.
  Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.
  Those who imagine evil where there is none, and do not see evil where it is — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.
  Those who discern the wrong as wrong and the right as right — upholding right views, they go to realms of bliss.


It depends on what your goals are.
If you are a practicing Buddhist who’s goal is to become enlightened, my advice is to find a profession that will bring about as little discomfort and personal conflict as possible. Work that brings anger, guilt, frustration, etc will naturally be distracting from your goal, and will make it more difficult to achieve. You want to find a job that you won’t “take home” with you. One that doesn’t encourage suffering within yourself. Or, if you have the luxury, become a monk! Becoming a monk is the fast track to removing yourself from situations that impede progress towards enlightenment. The bottom line here is, if you want to become enlightened, do a job that isn’t going to distract you from your goal.
If you are a practicing Buddhist who’s goal is just to live under the guidance of teachings, I would suggest just choosing a job that doesn’t violate the precepts. That way you can feel good about what you are doing, and will run into less conflict overall.


Those three terms do have a lot of similarities when we apply them.

Anapanasati is a broad term translated as "mindfulness of breathing", it can refer to any type of breath-meditation where we apply mindfulness. In the anapanasati sutta it mentions being mindful of the body while you are breathing, therefore you don't have to be mindful of the breath directly.

Samatha means a calm state so samatha meditation is a type of meditation where we try to create calm. Often being aware of the breath is a way to create calm so this can appear similar to anapanasati.

The word satipathana means a foundation for mindfulness. This is a type of meditation where to aim to practice mindfulness of anything we choose. The satipathana sutta uses the body and feelings as examples of things we can be mindful of. If you don't have much calm then it can be good to be mindful of the breath because it is quite stable. This can be a type of anapanasati meditation; also notice how it is linked to creating calm (samatha meditation).

Those three types of meditation overlap a lot and sometimes we could use more than one of those words to describe what we are doing.


Is Samma Dithi Right understanding or Right view?

Diṭṭhi in Pali literally means "sight", but here it is used to mean view, belief, dogma, theory, speculation.
Sammā diṭṭhi means Right View.
There are many other words in the PTS Pali-English Dictionary which may be used for "understanding" in different contexts, but diṭṭhi is not one of them.
From PTS Pali-English Dictionary on Diṭṭhi:

Diṭṭhi Diṭṭhi (f.) [Sk. dṛṣṭi; cp. dassana] view, belief, dogma,
theory, speculation, esp. false theory, groundless or unfounded
opinion.

From Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines:

(lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion,
insight.
If not qualified by sammā, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil
view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view,
understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi,
purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight).
Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchā-ditthi) are declared as utterly
rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and
conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of
depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22:
"No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an
extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the
unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness.
No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent
the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and
the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than
evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the
dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering,
into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a man
filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he
possesses of will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these
things lead him to an undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state,
to woe and suffering."
From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever
they arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27).
Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at all times have
influenced and still are influencing mankind, are quoted in the
sutta-texts. Amongst them, however, the wrong view which everywhere,
and at all times, has most misled and deluded mankind is the
personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This personality-belief
(sakkāya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2 kinds:
eternity-belief and annihilation-belief.
Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a
persisting ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of
those physical and mental processes that constitute life and
continuing even after death.
Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief
in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less
identical with those physical and mental processes, and which
therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be annihilated. -
For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkāya-ditthi.
Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue
after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated
at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual',
'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations
(vohāra-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca)
there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental
phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately.
"The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for the Perfect
One has seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away.
He has seen what feeling ... perception ... mental formations ...
consciousness are, and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say
that the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the
extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection and casting out of
all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclination to the 'vain-glory
of 'I' and 'mine." (M. 72).


Nyom Arturia,

Ajahn Chah once explained well how to have a relation, here in a simile of a glass:

  The Broken Glass

  You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?

  But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.

That's the case how to possible think if having or losing a relation.

The other case is the sub-question:

  And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke.

Realization that becoming is actually a "curel joke" is a very high realization and if seen in all compound things the reason for earnest seeking a path out, blessed if having come to the Buddhas good teachings. This is meeting up with the reality of Dukkha.

So in regard of search, what will be for a long time benefit?
That search it self is bound to much suffering as well, is clear, but if not having a search is needed and there are three kinds:

  Iti 54

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three searches. Which three? The search for sensuality, the search for becoming, the search for a holy life. These are the three searches."

  Centered,

  mindful,

  alert,

  the Awakened One's

  disciple

  discerns searches,

  how searches come into play,

  where they cease,

  & the path to their ending.

  With the ending of searches, a monk

  free of want

  is totally unbound.

Search for a partner is nothing but about searching after sensuallity, maybe becoming, isn't it? Of course after a career even more... so just give it a deeper thought and maybe use you luck of independency you currently have for a more holly life to be.

At the End it's maybe worthy to say, that also searching for a relation to be able to live the holly life is actually nessesary, so admirable friend(s) are always worthy to seach for and also to invest much in such a relationship, even of course it will outardly break, but once being part of the other kind, no and never alone and without support till standing firm alone.

Mudita

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commerzial purpose or other worldily gains)


Mental Illness and the bardo and rebirth

Wrong view can cause long repetition of bad existences, yes. So look always to straighten right view. to learn about what is right view and to stop ponder around about kamma, since such is one cause of getting "crazy". Beest right here and now!

(Its not given for your trades, stacks and to maintain exchanges, but as a tiny emergency exit out of the wheel you are, in if wishing so.)


Combining yoga (asanas); qigong meditation and raw vegan diet with Buddhism

There are a few things which come to mind that Buddhism may say about your current spiritual path;
Surely, the practices you have described will bring you some beneficial results. But without proper insight, guided by the Noble Eightfold path, they will not lead you to liberation from old age, suffering, and death. And this is evident by the way in which you describe the body. The body is in fact a prison, not a temple. This body is not ours, and by its very nature seeks out death. Pursuing health is a useless endeaver, as the Buddha said :

"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
"'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ...
"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ...
Upajjhatthana Sutta AN:5.57

And in fact, the mind has far more affect over the body than the body does over the mind, insofar as the mind is developed. An undeveloped mind can and will suffer in even the most healthy of bodies, but a well developed mind needs not suffer in even an ill and dying body. In this way, the two do not mutually affect each other, and therefore pursuing healthy things for the sake of health is of no benefit. Such clinging to your health and well being will only lead to suffering, as sooner or later it will come to an end.
As for asanas, or qigong meditation, I do not know. But unless their teachings ascribe the application of the Noble Eightfold path, they are not in line with the teaching of the Buddha, and will not lead one to final liberation.
I hope this helps clarify some things with your current practice in regards to the teachings of the Buddha.


How does the བར་དོ་ཐོས་གྲོལ (Bardo Thodol) "Tibetan Book of the Dead" fit in with the Kangyur and Tengyur

The Bardo Thodol is an extract from the Guhyagarbha tantra, which is the most important tantra in the Mahayoga class, and the most studied tantra within the Nyingma school. The Guhyagarbha is certainly in the Kangyur.


According to my teacher, the enlightened attitude is to see pain is information. (For comparison, the non-enlightened attitude is to block/avoid/suppress pain by all means.) Because pain is information, we should evaluate it, see what message it carries and what it means for us, and then act.

Some physical pain is a symptom of a deeper-lying problem, and instead of suppressing the symptom a wiser approach would be to take care of the causes (often, bad lifestyle habits).

Some physical pain accompanies exercises that help one get stronger physically and emotionally. The right attitude to such pain is to accept the physical component and by accepting it eliminate the emotional component that comes from resistance and self-pity (so called "pain of pain").

Obviously, some physical pain is a sign of damage being done to the body right now, like the pain that accompanies tearing of ligaments. There is also residual pain that accompanies recovery process etc. -- these fall in the realm of regular medicine.

So the rule of thumb is to not worry about the pain itself, but the message behind it.

However, if pain is so overwhelmingly strong that it obscures the mind, I would imagine the Buddhist approach would not disagree with using anesthetics temporarily.


If someone is willing to be blessed the Buddha's way, then I could think of no more suitable & special words than the words from the Mangala Sutta that tells us what are the blessings in one's life:

  To not associate with fools.
  Those who drag us down with their foolishness; drunkards, layabouts etc.
  To associate with the wise.
  Those who encourage us to grow spiritually. The Buddha emphasized the importance of good companionship in many ways; when Ananda remarked that good friends were half of the Holy Life, He replied " Say not so! Good friends are the whole of the Holy Life!"
  To pay repects where they are due.
  Making puja to the Triple Jewel, honouring our teachers and elders; to have this opportunity is a blessing not to be missed!
  To reside in a suitable location.
  A place congenial to life, peaceful and with such a society and economy that we can live free from want and fear.
  To have previously done meritorious deeds.
  Thus, we can enjoy the fruit now. But don't be one who just lives off her capital! Invest in yourself by making more good merit now.
  To be heading in the right direction.
  If we are advancing spiritually, growing in wisdom and compassion, then we are surely blessed.
  To have much learning.
  Being well educated in the broadest sense; a well-rounded individual. In particular to have knowledge of the Dhamma is to possess a jewel beyond price.
  To be skilled and knowledgeable.
  Every useful skill we possess, crafts, trades, special knowledge can be of some use in improving life for ourselves and others.
  To be restrained by a moral code.
  A sound morality is the basis of peace and happiness.
  To have beautiful speech.
  That is; truthful, timely, pleasant speech connected with meaning. Such speech that others are delighted and improved by hearing.
  To be a support for your parents.
  The opportunity to repay the enormous debt we owe to our mother and father should be seen as a blessing and not as a burden.

  12 & 13.  The cherishing of wife and child.
  A happy family life.(perhaps the subtle differences between 12 & 13 got lost in translation?)

  To make one's livelihood without difficulty.
  A wholesome occupation that one does well and enjoys.
  To make gifts.
  Giving is a source of joy for both giver and receiver. Be one blessed with a generous spirit.
  To live in accord with the Dhamma.
  To have heard the Holy dhamma in this life and to have the capacity and opportunity to practice is a rare and wonderful thing.
  To cherish one's relatives.
  To have a functioning extended family (clan) either in the traditional sense or a community of friends and colleagues.
  To do blameless actions.
  Living one's life in an unreproachable way. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, nothing to regret.
  To cease and abstain from evil.
  Having the inclination of mind that instinctively recoils from evil as if from a red hot iron ball.
  To refrain from intoxicants.
  Not to need those substances which dull our precious human consciousness.
  Not to be heedless of the Dhamma.
  Being mindful and compassionate; going through life with eyes and heart open . Attention to details!
  To be respectful.
  Respect for the conventions is to make the life into a beautiful dance. Respect for the Buddha nature of all beings is the root of refined manners.
  To be humble.
  Pride goeth before a fall and the meek shall inherit the earth.
  To be content.
  Contentment with little is the magical wish-fulfilling gem! Its also a healthy attitude for our planet right now.
  To have gratitude.
  The Buddha said that gratitude is rare to find in this world. Remember always that you never would have gotten this far without a lot of help!
  To hear the Dhamma at the right time.
  Everyone who has experienced a word of teaching that touched the heart at just the right moment knows what a precious gift this can be.
  To have patience.
  Patience is a virtue but also a blessing. Just think how much suffering comes from impatience.
  To be easy to admonish.
  Make yourself amenable to teaching and those with something to teach will be ready to help you.
  The sight of monks.
  The robed figure of the recluse is an archetypal call to consciousness; together with the dead man, the sick man and the old man they are called the four divine messengers.
  To discuss the Dhamma at a suitable time.
  Speaking of the Holy Dhamma is the noblest use of the human power of speech. To be blessed with time and companions with which to speak of things tending to liberation is amazing grace indeed.
  To practice austerities.
  In the buddhist context this means the practising of meditation; a daily practice and regular retreats.
  To lead the Holy Life.
  To live devoted to the Eightfold Path and the seeking of Liberation.
  Seeing the Noble Truths.
  Opening of the Dhamma Eye. This refers to a level of direct penetration well beyond the intellectual.
  The realization of Nibbana.
  Going through the gateless gate. The treasure beyond any price in heaven and earth.
  A mind unshaken by contact with the world.
  Being in the world but not of it.
  Sorrowlessness.
  Beyond the realms of suffering.
  Stainlessness.
  The end of the obscuring defilements.
  Secure.
  Once found it cannot be lost.

  These are the highest blessings!
  Having accomplished this
  one is always unconquered,
  one goes everywhere in peace.
  These are the blessings supreme!


How to increase my potential in daimoku?

Daimoku simply refers to the reciting of the title of the Heart Sutra. While this is a Tendai tradition, all Tendai monks would have been intimately familiar with the actual content of the Sutra. What you are asking is similar to "how can I get a better grade on my book report by just reading the cover?".

The Heart Sutra states: there is no gain. Daimoku is a method, a vessel to get you to the other side. There's no point in finding a bigger boat as you won't be carrying it on your back once you reach the other side. Like you would leave the boat on the shore, Daimoku will just drop away. It's not a question of how much you recite, but of how.


Introductory/Beginner books on Buddhism, but for children

I don't have a title for you but there are the Jataka Tales which would introduce some Buddhist ideas to entertain and there are english publications of these.

However if the child is over 7 years old it is possible that they would understand whatever you throw at them in regards to the Dhamma, there are mentions of very young Arahants from the time of the Buddha.

Other than that there are the Gathas (poems of the Elders) which come to mind if you are looking for something like that.


Of course there are restrictions!

  Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami (I will refrain from sexual activity)

If you can't have sex, your spouse probably won't be too pleased.  Having a family of your own will also prove slightly more difficult.  Besides, the whole point of forgoing the householder life for homelessness is to pursue enlightenment with the minimal amount of obstacles possible.  Supporting a family is quite a large responsibility to undertake!

(Note: this does not apply to all Buddhist schools.  Zen monks often marry.  But if you are looking for the strict, scholastic answer, see above.)


Questions regarding meditation posture and movement

I was being told that we don't practice to become experts on sitting. So if you  have intense pain, go the middle way. Acknowledge pain, acknowledge that you want to move, try to overcome the pain a bit, acknowledge unbearable, and after a few moments, if necessary, move the body mindfully (not automatically, in reaction), and carry on particing, again in still.

It is important to simply acknowledge, and even if you have to react to unbearable pain, acknowledge first, and react as if in slow motion. If you have pain and then worries about your legs, acknowledge fear (and let it go and go back to breath), if you fear mosquito, acknowledge fear etc.

If you become aware of an automatic reaction (movement) which has already taken place, acknowledge that awareness, acknowledge your thoughts about it (self-judgement, or whatever else arises) and go back to breath.

Middle way. If your meditation hall is on fire, acknowledge smelling, seeing, fear, then get up mindfully and take care of survival of yours and your fellow meditators.

I find the question you linked to be a very good explanation.


Where does 'contentment' fit in walking the path of Dhamma?

The sutta SN 16.1 is about contentment.
From SN 16.1:

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, this Kassapa is content with any kind of robe,
and he speaks in praise of contentment with any kind of robe, and he
does not engage in a wrong search, in what is improper, for the sake
of a robe. If he does not get a robe he is not agitated, and if he
gets one he uses it without being tied to it, uninfatuated with it,
not blindly absorbed in it, seeing the danger in it, understanding the
escape.
“Bhikkhus, this Kassapa is content with any kind of almsfood … with
any kind of lodging … with any kind of medicinal requisites … and if
he gets them he uses them without being tied to them, uninfatuated
with them, not blindly absorbed in them, seeing the danger in them,
understanding the escape.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will be
content with any kind of robe, and we will speak in praise of
contentment with any kind of robe, and we will not engage in a wrong
search, in what is improper, for the sake of a robe. If we do not get
a robe we will not be agitated, and if we get one we will use it
without being tied to it, uninfatuated with it, not blindly absorbed
in it, seeing the danger in it, understanding the escape.
“‘We will be content with any kind of almsfood … with any kind of
lodging … with any kind of medicinal requisites … and if we get them
we will use them without being tied to them, uninfatuated with them,
not blindly absorbed in them, seeing the danger in them, understanding
the escape.’ Thus should you train yourselves.
“Bhikkhus, I will exhort you by the example of Kassapa or one who is
similar to Kassapa. Being exhorted, you should practise accordingly.”

Also AN 6.114:

“Mendicants, there are these three things. What three? Lack of
contentment, lack of situational awareness, and having many wishes.
These are the three things. To give up these three things you should
develop three things. What three? You should develop contentment to
give up lack of contentment, situational awareness to give up lack of
situational awareness, and having few wishes to give up having many
wishes. These are the three things you should develop to give up those
three things.”


How is it that we cycle through the nanas?

The word “gnana” is the very opposite on “Vinnana”. “Gnana” is Wisdom. In cultivating “gnana”, one’s avijja is reduced. Then what  naturally accompanies or follows is the reduction of certain types of vinnana.

A type of gnana that one develops through the understanding of Tilakkhana is “anulöma gnana”.  When one comprehends anicca, dukkha, anatta to the extent that one gets to ‘see’ this Tilakkhana, one is said to have the “anulöma nana”.  This gnana helps in the removal of craving for worldly things to some extent.

A special knowledge that one gains of the workings of Pali language is “patisambidha gnana”. This is the awareness of the Syntax in the Pali language. It is the understanding of the arrangement of words and phrases to create new words. Unlike the English language, the meaning of the Pali word changes, in the way it gets used. A Pali word can have more than one meaning. A Pali word can have a conventional meaning and a deeper meaning. One who gains “patisambidha gnana” sees the deeper meaning of key words.

Another gnana that one could gain is “udayabbaya gnana”. When one develops this gnana, one can see the causes that need to be eliminated to overcome otherwise inevitable future suffering. S/he then learns of the factors relating to all knowledge about the arising and destruction of anything in this world. S/he also gains the knowledge on how to stop anything from arising in this world. This is the ‘nirodha’ aspect of things.


How did Buddha deal with people that were sexually attracted to him?

I recall there is a story (which is probably not from the Pali suttas but from a commentary) where a woman was in love with the Buddha so the Buddha used psychic power to make his appearance age before the woman, similar to the commentary story below:

Janapadakalyāṇī became a nun because her eldest brother (the Buddha) had renounced his kingdom to become a monk, his son Rāhula had become
a monk, her own husband, Nanda, had become a monk, and her mother, had
all gone forth. Due to her great beauty, she became known as Rūpanandā
Therī. Hearing that the Buddha deprecated beauty, she avoided visiting
him. However, hearing the lavish praise of the Buddha by the nuns and
women devotees, she wished to see and hear the Buddha, so one day went
with the other nuns, sitting behind them. The Buddha used his psychic
powers to create a vision of a beautiful young woman fanning him.
Rūpanandā was captivated by her beauty. The Buddha then caused the
young woman to age gradually, slowly taking on the form of an old
woman, then one dying in agony. Finally he made her body became a
bloated corpse, pecked at by crows. Becoming thoroughly disgusted,
Rūpanandā reflected that her own body was the same. Then the Buddha
uttered the above verse and Rūpanandā gained Arahantship.
http://www.aimwell.org/11-jara.html


Do the specific historical past events play any role in the analysis of the conditions leading to suffering?

Certain buddhist schools adhere to the idea of Alaya-vijnana, which roughly corresponds to the western notion of an unconsciousness.

The idea is that karma is originated by "seeds" (bhijas) stored in our unconscious memory, and are made up of previous experiences. These seeds can therefore be seen as the cause for our karma.

This connects to the four right efforts, in order to examine the seeds and deal with them to accomplish non-arising, abandonment, arising or maintenance according to dharma.

A question to reflect on: Is understanding our past necessary for liberation?


Can following Buddhist practices help me in my studies?

You didn't mention whether you are a University student or a high school student. I'm going to assume you are in University for this answer.

Since you follow Buddhist ideas, you are likely familiar with the 5 precepts which are voluntarily taken by lay people who wish to follow the Buddha's teachings and who recognize that living in a manner that is harmless to others is needed as a first step. By taking the 5 precepts, a University student would be avoiding some of the worst problems that plague University populations many of which are related to alcohol and drug use and the regrettable behaviors that can follow. Here's a recent example of highly intelligent students ruining their reputations and educational opportunity by engaging in Wrong Livelihood. The practice of sīla can serve a student well and preserve educational opportunity.

The benefits to a student of practicing mindfulness are many and are briefly outlined here from the Brown University Student Health Services page.
An excerpt:

  Several studies with college students suggest that the practice of mindfulness leads to decreases in stress and anxiety, improvements in concentration and attention, and increases in self-awareness and overall emotional well-being.  Professor Willoughby Britton, a clinical psychologist at Brown, has studied the effects of mindfulness meditation on Brown students and has found that meditation decreases anxiety.

Here's enough data to make your head spin from the American Mindfulness Research Association, much of it new and with mixed results. As is often said said regarding following Buddhist teachings and practices, try it for yourself. See if you see beneficial changes in yourself. When you see it for yourself; you'll know. :)


Conflict between theistic religious belief and Buddhist practice?

According to Dalai Lama (targeting general public), if Buddhist ideals appeal to you, but you are already a member of another religion and worried about compatibility, you can (and should!) stay with your religion. From his perspective, all religions declare the same basic values of compassion etc. and if you practice your religion well, there is no point for you to switch.

According to Chogyam Trungpa however (targeting serious practitioners), there is a fundamental difference between theistic religions and Buddhism. Theistic religions posit a notion of Other Power (God) that you have to appeal to for your salvation. While the nontheistic teaching has practitioner depend on his own power (with Guru's help). From this perspective, the notion of God as an external entity must be transcended before the practitioner can fully reconnect with his/her fundamental sanity.

In Pure Land Buddhism practitioner initially depends on Other Power (Buddha Amitabha), which starts as an external entity, but eventually, through a change of perspective, is identified as one's true nature. So we could say, on advanced stages the notion of external God is transcended there as well.


How to deal with sore hips during sitting?

In Zen meditation, posture is important. This is what I was taught. One sits on a zafu placed on a zabuton as below. It's important that the hips be elevated above the knees. The spine is erect (imagine a string coming through the top of your head and pulling you upward) and the pelvis is tilted forward slightly. The knees form the stable base to support the posture; i.e. you are leaning on your knees a bit. Balance and symmetry is important so half lotus wouldn't be ideal; a Burmese style would be more balanced and is also considered to be an easier position for those newer to sitting on the floor. Going from sitting kneeling style to sitting with the knees extended; it will take some time for the hip muscles to relax and become flexible. Best wishes.


Excellent question. You're definitely onto something.
As everyone here said, wrong thoughts are real, these are thoughts that have a nature of conflict: thoughts of wanting more, thoughts of not wanting anymore, thoughts like "it's not supposed to be like this".
Our tactical goal is Peace, a state of mind when there's no inner conflict, no conflicting thoughts. (Our strategic goal, at least in Mahayana, is Enlightenment and full Liberation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves).
To attain that tactical goal, you need to eradicate the conflicting thoughts (of both craving and aversion types). Now, if you were to judge your thoughts as "wrong", you would only create more conflict right then and there. So the trick is to eradicate conflict without creating even more conflict. How is that to be done?
Instead of sitting there and hating yourself or hating your bad thoughts or blaming them or suppressing them - we just don't feed them and let them dissolve. We let our attention naturally move on to other thoughts. Or, if attention keeps getting stuck, we gently move it onto other topics, deliberately.
Depending on where you are in your practice this may require less or more effort. When you are very advanced, you just watch them and they dissolve like the writing on water. When you are a beginner, you may have to speak out loud on some positive topic in order to distract your attention. And everything in between.


How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?

the diminishing of the presence of tanha leads to the diminishing of the presence of dukkha... the extension of this principle... via inductive reasoning... applied all the way until complete eradication of dukkha...

Let's reason logically:
We know that everything in life of a sentient being can be subsumed under subjective experience. For a sentient being subjective experience is life, subjective experience is what matters.
All subjective experience can be broadly categorized as either "rather good" ("nice", "right", "satisfying", "positive", "pleasant", or at least acceptable/neutral) or "rather bad" ("nasty", "wrong", "annoying", "negative", "painful" etc). Therefore, for sentient beings, the character of their subjective experience is the essence of the difference between the Good and the Bad.
Now, subjective experience is made of the mind, it is a state of mind. There's no subjective experience outside of mind. And the nature of mind is representation, it is made of information that stands for something. Therefore subjective experience is a flow of interpretation generating a stream of representations. How can it be good, right, pleasant or bad, wrong, painful?
The nature of interpretation is such that it allows no contradictions. Contradicting evidence interferes with interpretation. Contradicting conclusions are a failure of interpretation. Therefore any such interpretative contradictions are harmful to the very process of interpretation which is the nature of the subjective experience.
Therefore it is the interpretative contradictions that make the difference between the good, right, pleasant, harmonious experience and the bad, wrong, painful, discordant experience.
Now, the interpretative contradictions come from a clash of two or more incompatible representations pertaining to the same subject. The way we give rise to interpretative contradictions is twofold. The coarse ones are created by getting into a circumstance of life with inherent contradiction between the elements of the situation. The subtle ones are generated directly in the mind.
According to the Buddha, the coarse ones are eradicated through the consistent practice of social and behavioral ethics - choosing one's actions such as to not create causes for discordant circumstances - while the remaining subtle ones are eradicated in meditation, by mastering one's attention and interpretation mechanisms as to prevent all kinds of inner discord.
If this were all there was to Buddhism, your doubt would be justified. Indeed, how can we know with absolute certainty that it is possible for an individual sentient being to reach a state where their mind, their process of interpretation, will no longer give rise to any and all interpretative contradictions caused by incompatible representations? Isn't the very nature of mind being a product of representations - simplified and partial by their very nature - inevitably leads to arising of conflicts? Isn't representation inherently conflict-prone?
To answer this question we need to get very clear about the mechanism behind the process of interpretation. Interpretation is an act of translating one or more signs into a category of experience this sign (or signs) signify (or represent). These links between signs and the categories, as well as the signs and the categories themselves, is something we learn from experience and absorb from our parents and other people as well as from various media.
As a sentient being accumulates these signs, categories, and interpretations - it connects them together into one semiconsistent structure called "everything I know about the world". The same totality of one sentient being's representations, with all its opinions and interpretations is what makes up its personality. Personality is the other side of the coin of "the world as we know it". The root of personality is Ego, the inferred notion that "I am the subject and my experience is consistent". In other words, Ego is this assumption that our interpretation and therefore our experience is done from a certain point of view, a certain perspective. 'I am' - thinks the ego - 'therefore my opinions and my actions have an inner logic to them'. The job of ego is endless self-rationalization in order to prove its own existence.
Because ego is all about self-rationalization, it must maintain a semblance of consistency at all cost. Guess what, this dependency on consistency is exactly what makes ego vulnerable to contradicting interpretations! So whenever we have a case of incompatible representations, it is the ego that suffers! It is the ego that is hurt by the conflict! In and off themselves the contradicting interpretations are just that, a logical contradiction. It is hurtful only because we identify with our process of interpretation, we declare ourselves to be the interpreter.
And herein lies the answer to your question. We know the complete liberation from dukkha is possible because we know it is not to be achieved by the process of asymptotic approximation of the conflictless harmonious state. (Although as shown by the Buddha, reducing the outer and inner conflict goes a long way towards achieving the clarity of mind required for the final realization.) Instead, it is achieved by removing the very foundation of conflict - the grasping at a point of view called "I". When this is done, resulting in the sentient being having no point of view, no position - the representations of the world continue clashing as before, but for the one like this there's no more conflict.
In summary, we don't need mathematical induction too see that complete liberation from dukkha is possible. What's necessary and sufficient is to understand the second noble truth: the arising of dukkha happens due to grasping, the root of grasping is the ego's demand for continuous consistency, therefore letting go of that demand, i.e. letting go of identification with one's knowledge, view, position, perspective, in short, letting go of self-identification - is the final liberation.

the Buddha: Well said, well said! That's right. You have understood it perfectly. You have understood the nature of mind. You are ready to become the next Buddha of this world.
I: Suuuure, and the elephants are actually pink!
the Buddha: That's right. Elephants are actually pink. Everything is pink when you understand the nature of mind.


What is the buddhist conception of light?

The Buddha was a psychologist rather than a physicist or house cleaner. The Buddha is called the 'Spiritual Doctor'. For the Buddha, the most important light was the 'light' of wisdom.

Also, the Buddha mostly enjoyed living in the forest or jungle therefore was not overly concerned with keeping marble temples clean; similar to how Muḥammad (PBUH) formerly enjoyed meditating in a cave & would wrap himself in blankets when giving a revelation.

Therefore, the Buddha's eyes are closed so the mind can be understood internally, in particular, how the mind generates sufferings & how the mind frees itself from suffering.

That said, the Buddha was also a mystic and taught one meditation called the 'perception of light', which can be used to develop psychic powers. The Buddha had the 'Eye of God' (dibba-cakkhu) therefore could see, hear & know what people were doing from within his mind. That is why his eyes are closed. The Buddha did not have to open his eyes to know what was going on the world.

  And what is the development of mind using concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the attainment of knowing & seeing? There is the
  case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved
  on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him]
  is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an
  awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is
  the development of mind using concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowing & seeing.

  Samadhi Sutta


How to keep balance in the thin line between non attachment to reputation and "not caring about anything"

I don't exactly have an answer or advice to this, as I have a similar experience to a certain extent, but I understand that even though others might see the external us and base an opinion on it, the mind development that's going on for Buddhists may always be misunderstood by those not familiar with it and thus, dukkha arises for the one making the judgement. Maybe it also arises in us too, if we react to it even just a little bit. It's hard to be unaffected, I find. I guess that depends on where each one of is in the practice.  As the Buddha describes, it is 'Patisothagami' or "it is a path that goes against the stream", so we're bound to hit resistance both from the stream and the other fish...to use a popular analogy.

Maybe here equanimity is needed with compassion in order to keep us within the sphere of 'normal' worldliness whilst striving for something beyond it.

I hope the reflection is useful and thank you for bringing it up.

Best wishes

Paul