Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas?

In the Yamaka Sutta, Ven. Sariputta, made Yamaka to understand that the five skandas are anicca. If one truly understands this reality the extinction of the process happens in the form of ‘Nibbana’.   If we willingly attach to these five skandas with the nicca sanna, then we suffer. Only in realizing that nothing can be maintained to one’s satisfaction in the long run, can we arrive at Nibbana.

Nibbana is not sunnata or emptiness. The person who attained Nibbana is only empty of the five upadanaskandas. The five skandas remain. It is like this. if we take a water bottle and pour the water out, we say we have an empty bottle. But in reality there is air in the bottle, so the bottle is empty only with regard to water; it is not empty regard to air.

Thus what is meant was that “it is empty of”. There is no absolute “emptiness”. At Nibbana  one is empty of greed (raga), hate (dosa), and ignorance (moha). At Arahanthood, even the slightest bondage to anything material is discarded.

For one who has attained Nibbana, there is only "ditthē dittha mattan bhavissati- sutē suta mattan bhavissati- mutē muta mattan bhavissati” – There is only seeing in the ‘seeing’; only hearing in the ‘hearing’ etc. It is only you and I, that take nimithi & anu nimithi  (impressions of objects) from what we hear or see.

As long as there is greed, ill will & delusion we retain impressions of objects (nimithi anu nimithi) of self & pleasurable things. The impressions stimulate our senses and thus we see people & things around us. Only the minds that are polluted with greed, hatred & delusion associate four elements. The one who sees arising ceasing nature of aggregates sees the emptiness of any inherent meaning & will not retain impressions thereby abandoning the defilements of greed hatred and delusion.


What would an Arahant experience, as a slave in a labor camp?

First of all, Arahanths never feel sadness, grief, hate etc. They  don't have wives, but they may have ex-wives.

if the Arahath has psychic powers he might fly away to spare the people from acquiring extremely bad karma or he might stay if he saw it as an unavoidable consequence of a past Karma.

Either way, he will never get upset no matter what happens. He would try to make the people come to their senses, if he sees potential in them to be better humans. Otherwise he'd remain in a meditative state when not attending to the maintenance of the body.


Is contemplation of death auto-suggestion?

Contemplating death achieves certain objectives and contemplation should be worded to realise the said objective though the wording can be different:

being fearless at the moment of death such that your last mind moment can be conducive to a better rebirth - hence contemplate along the lines that everyone will die including me, death is common to all. Is this form you can use other people like famous people, great people, powerful people, etc. who have died to re enforce that achievements do not stop death. In addition you can perhaps use living loved ones so you reduce your attachment to them so you will be less saddened when they actually die if you are to die before hand you will be able to let go of loved ones.
get the notion that time is running out hence attend to what needs attention without delay - hence contemplate along the lines that life is un certain, death is certain, hence be quick. This might be like auto suggestion to meditate. But auto suggestion to meditate will not achieve the same effectiveness as it does not embed the notion that time is limited, this limit is unknown and it is running out fast and death takes your ability to beat or win over death to achieve deathlessness. This notion fuels urgency and spiritual restlessness to practice. As a result this helps with eliminating or reducing procrastination.
letting go of possession and loved ones - hence contemplate along the lines that when I die I will not take anything or anyone with me and no one has in the past.

In devising your own wording, keep it short, sweet / easy to mentally recite (rhyming / rhythmic), to the point, in a language you understand.

Also see: How do I do "contemplation of death" meditation? And is it dangerous?


The wholesomeness and unwholesomeness and neutrality is decided by what you would perceive when you experience or feel the result. This is the differentiation between them.

Generally aversion are painful when doing and so is when you get the result.

Generally clining based acts are pleasant when doing and also when you get the result.

Generally neutral sensations are when they are neither the above but still with the root of ignorance.

The motivation associated with the purpose decides what is the result. This also has some sensation associated with it. This can be used decide what is wholesome or not when the volition is formed as detached observer as sometimes these minds spontaneously arise. (All 121 Citta has sensation associated hence any through arising is Dukkha - Dukkha Dukkha, Viparinama Dukkha, Sankhara Dukkha - whatever the sensation.) There are 7 roots which are Ahetuka (only enlighten person experiences this), Loba, Dosa, Moha, (unwholesome) Aloba, Adosa, Amoha (wholesome). When minds rooted in the above arise the Dukkha (painful experience, pleasant experience - unsatisfactoriness of change is pleasent experience, neutral experience - fabricated existance) or sensation associated with the roots are there also and you experience unsatisfactoriness in a subtle way. The sensation can be used to identify what the volition behind a purpose when the classification of the roots are not clear cut.

Though the action is same this might be might be motivated by different intentions or purposes in which case the results and wholesomeness will differ based on the motivation and what roots are present. Hence the Dukkha when volition forms and the Dukkha when the results do manifest will also differ accordingly, but distinction is from the Dukkha you experience or type of sensations. E.g. the purpose of a surgeon cutting a person is motivated to save the life but in the case of a robber it might be greed and aversion to kill and rob, but the action is same but the purpose is different. Also you maybe donating something to a allied country motivated block import of the same from another country hence indirectly economically sabotage another country, in which case you seemingly doing good but the purpose is not. With the volition you experience the sensation associated the root and many more times amplified when you experience the fruit.

Intention, action and result decides the karmic formation. Sometimes good intention may not result in positive outcome nevertheless the though does bear fruit perhaps not as weighty as a rebirth linking Karma. If you have the intention but not follow though you still have a weak Karma. If you have intention and follow through and the desired result happens then this is a more intense Karma. Whatever the case motivation decide the feeling associated resulting experience and also see it when the volition forms. The taste of the fruit you take and plant will have the same taste and the fruits the tree would bear. Intention is the initial fruit from which you take the seed to plant.


A Buddhist Point of View of Virtual Reality

Gosh, that's a heavy question. All I'll do is point you to some potentially useful material. I suggest you take a look at comparisons between the philosophy of Wittgenstein, and that of Nagarjuna. (Professional analytic philosophers may be knee-jerking like crazy here, but I'll persist.) The central idea that connects them -- if anything does -- is the idea that what you are asking sits outside the bounds of what language can express. It -- the notion of more or less "real"-ness -- is an example of what Wittgenstein referred to in stating "Whereof one cannot speak, thereon one must remain silent."

Or, less exotically, I really do think that the movie "The Matrix" has something to offer here. When Neo asks Morpheus, inside the battle simulation, "So this isn't real?", Morpheus replies "What is real?" Put another way, why are you distinguishing between "virtual" reality, and "real" reality? Ultimately we have no idea what is "out there"; the only thing we do know for sure is that we are perceiving it.

I don't know if that is of any use whatsoever :-)


When we speak about causation we're used to thinking in terms of discrete entities interacting and causing distinct events. This is normal in materialistic view, ever obsessed with discreteness. However, when we speak about continuity, we are in the analogue world - where everything morphs and flows, and where individual "things" and "events" are more like the sums of the amplitudes of multiple intersecting waves rather than truly isolated entities.

Also, in Dependent Origination we are not as much talking about causation as we're talking about what Charles Sanders Peirce called "the habit formation", or the tendency of tendencies to self-perpetuate and grow.

You know how in men toilets there is a self-perpetuating tendency for the floor under the urinal to get wet? (It self-perpetuates by causing men to stand further away.) The same exact principle is behind Dependent Origination, and, according to Peirce, behind Evolution at large.

Mind is integrated information, regardless of media. Accumulation of regular patterns leads to development of mind's faculty of recognition, and mind's tendency to form habits and to seek comfort in familiar experiences. This in turns leads to emergence of purposeful activity towards comfortable experiences. This tendency self-perpetuates and develops into a full-blown Umwelt, complete with "objects", "other living beings" and "I".

So yeah, continuity and causation are two alternative descriptions of essentially same thing, but the tendency for habit formation is the real key in D.O.


Should I maintain my mindfulness 24 hours a day?

Mindfulness will increase with correct, consistent practice. At some point, if continued practice occurs, the sleep cycle will be affected too, in the form of a lighter sleep with less dreaming and more awareness.

When balancing the Five Spiritual Faculties, Mindfulness is the only factor that is not balanced meaning one can cultivate as much mindfulness as possible without creating any imbalances in the mind.

I would recommend watching the video "How Mindfulness Creates Understanding (The Buddhist TV)" by Ven. Yuttadhammo.


You might not be able to do this the traditional way.

But Sila is a promise to abstain. The promise can be to the Triple Gem of another person. Best is to make the promise to the Triple Gem.

Throughout the day recall the promise and see if you have broken it. If so take it again. If not make a determination to keep the posimie recollecting which precepts you have taken.

The skillful karma from the Sila is in the initial taking, recollection and retaking as well as the determination. So do the recollection retaking often with strong determination.

Also Sila has many level. Initially this can be like a rite or ritual. At an intermediate level it is based on Brahmavihara as breaking the precepts will harm or make other or oneself unhappy can cause negative karma for oneself, and at a higher level it is at level of sensation. The sensation is what gives arise to the unwholesome roots. So abstain from action which are unwholesome triggered by the respective sensation. More on this see: Kīta,giri Sutta.


I think the question is unimportant because Buddhism does not provide an answer for this question & because in Buddhism there is a path for laypeople that can be practised by both heterosexual & homosexual people. I personally know gay people who are very spiritual, very moral, very faithful to their partners & extremely compassionate. In short, there is no inherent correlation between casual sex, infidelity & homosexuality.


How much of our initial conditions come from past Kamma?

Buddha addressing the issue of Kamma in the Chula-Kammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya No. 135) has shown us why “No two people are alike and why human beings differ in their skills, beauty, longevity, health, personality, etc..”. It was in response to a question asked by Subha. Subha asked as to why no two human beings are alike? Why some people are short lived, and others long lived, some sickly and others healthy, some beautiful, and others ugly, some influential and others non-influential, some rich and others poor. In response Buddha said:

  ” beings are the owners of their own actions, born out of their actions, related through their actions, and have action as their arbitrator.  Action is what determines and differentiates beings in terms of their processions, character and the qualities they inherit.”

From this we can take that the effect of ones past kamma determine the nature of ones present situation in life. As I pointed out before, everything is NOT due to Kamma. Kamma is one's own doing reacting on oneself, and so one can divert the course of Kamma and the degree to which depends on oneself. Only the Buddha had the perfect knowledge about kamma. He is the only one who fully realised kamma. He is the ONLY one who could teach the nature of kamma, how it works, how it originates, how it is eliminated. For you and me, it is too complex an issue to try to understand. For example, ONLY when a person gets married that for him/her all hell would break loose and the marriage end in divorce. That person can never find contentment in marriage even in subsequent marriages to others. Then there are those who can never find success as a recluse/bhikku. That is their Kamma. Thus from a Buddhist standpoint, our present mental, intellectual, moral and temperamental differences are mainly due to our own actions and tendencies, both past the present. So in short yours is an unanswerable question.

AN 3:76 Bhava Sutta: Becoming, gives us an analogy to describe how becoming is produced:  “Kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.” Kamma gives us a range of possibilities in which the seed of consciousness can be planted and on which it can feed. Craving is the moisture that keeps the seed alive and allows it to grow into a state of becoming.

Then there is this aspect too. Kamma can mean different things in different contexts. Once Buddha said that “Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.” — AN 6:63. In others, kamma means also the results of that action. The six sense media (Ayatana) are old kamma. Whatever kamma one does with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.” — SN 35:145. kamma is complex because the relationship between old kamma and new kamma is intertwined. It is so complex that that past kamma does not absolutely determine one’s experience of the present moment. There is a tendency for a certain type of kamma to lead to a certain type of result, but the intensity of that result is not a fixed thing. It is also influenced by a factor of present kamma: one’s state of mind now when a particular instance of past kamma ripens. Thus the kamma of one’s state of mind in the present moment plays a crucial role in influencing how the ripening of past kamma is experienced.


In mindfulness, we try to stay in the present moment, being aware of what we are doing and experiencing right here and right now. For the most part, the things that upset us are things that happened in the past, even if the past was just 5 minutes ago. Dwelling on the past would be outside of mindfulness.

A great dhamma talk I've read on this subject is from Ajahn Sumedo called In the moment of mindfulness, there is no suffering.

  In the moment of mindfulness, there is no suffering. I can’t find any suffering in mindfulness; it’s impossible; there’s absolutely none. But when there’s heedlessness, there is a lot of suffering in my mind. If I give in to grasping things, to wanting things, to following emotions or doubts and worries and being caught up in things like that—then there is suffering. It all begins from my grasping. But when there is mindfulness and right understanding, then I can’t find any suffering at all in this moment, now. This is about this moment here and now.

I encourage you to read the rest of the dhamma talk to be inspired to try to live in this present moment.

Regarding realizing you are upset about something that occurred in the past, the simple technique of noting and observing your feeling, such as noting "angry...angry" or "disappointed...disappointed" without replaying in your mind the incident which made you angry or disappointed can help you see that feelings such as these are fleeting and impermanent. They come and go and we can help ourselves see their impermanent nature by not "feeding" them with overthinking them or dwelling in the past but remaining in the present moment and impartially observing that feelings arise and cease.


The object of Buddhist fasting is to eliminate the old habits. (ie:hunger)
This should be practiced in a middle way. That is why monks are required to not to eat after midday.
If you extend the fasting more than that it becomes the self-mortification. which was rejected by Buddha.


Blind police justice and right livelihood

this comes to me, im not 100% sure if my memories correct.  One time, Lady Visaka (or other rich merchant in savatthi) was upset (or even crying) that king Pasendikosala denied her something.   Buddha said to be under someone's authority is suffering, but being under the authority of sensual desires is much worst.  When I get bullied (by bosses or any authority figures), my heart would think of this.

As far as view from authority figures, they have options not to break precepts.


Are there Theravada practitioners that aspire to be Buddhas?

There are many who aspire to be Buddhas even in the Theravada community. But it is not something that is usually encouraged. It is left up to the individual choice.

Those who make such aspirations out of ego and lack of understanding of the enormity of the task are discouraged and adviced to give it up. Those who  have mastered the Tipitaka at the highest level and proven their worthiness to the community are given blessings. Even then it's not sure until they actually get the blessings of another Sammasambuddha. And it's not certain if they ever get the chance to meet another Buddha, let alone getting the blessing. Those who never get that blessing end up being Pacceka-Buddhas after a long time, if they don't give up the pursuit.


Is going for refuge central to all Buddhist traditions?

In every single branch of Buddhism I have looked into, going for refuge is seen as the defining feature of what makes you a Buddhist. The Theravada school holds to this position, every form of East Asian Mahayana Buddhism I've read about holds this position, and Tibetan Buddhism also puts great stress on going for refuge to the point where reciting the refuge formula with Bodhichitta 100,000 times (usually combined with prostration and visualizing the refuge tree) is a central part of Tibetan Ngöndro, or foundational practice.

I think that Sangharakshita really was correct in identifying the central role of refuge in all Buddhist traditions.


how can spirts/sould see physical things without eyes

You need the eye faculty to see. In Humans and animals you have a physical eye made of gross material. In finer material spheres you will have eyes with finer material. Only in immaterial realms you will be without sense faculties.

In finer material realm your sense faculties are finer / shapere than being gross faculties. This is why in super normal powers this one of the power is know are divine [godly/heavenly] eye.

In all realms you have the 6 faculties in some for or the other except in the immaterial realms where you do not have the physical faculties.

Being in some finer material realm (heavens and hells) can see people in our realm and perhaps other realms also.

Perhaps in other realms also there might be being without an eye faculty like the blind in our realm. I don't this there being would be able to see.


Resources to study the Abhidharma in the East/North Asian schools of Buddhism (e,g, Mahayana, Tibetan, Yogacara, Dharmaguptaka, etc.)

The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra, also called the Satyasiddhi Śāstra, is an extant abhidharma text written by Harivarman, a 4th-century monk from central India. Harivarman is often thought to come from the Bahuśrutīya school, but the Tattvasiddhi contains teachings more similar to those of the Sautrāntika Sarvāstivādins. This abhidharma is now contained in the Chinese Buddhist canon in sixteen fascicles (Taishō Tripiṭaka 1646). Paramārtha cites this abhidharma text as containing a combination of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna doctrines, and Joseph Walser agrees that this assessment is correct. Ian Charles Harris also characterizes the text as a synthesis of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, and notes that its doctrines are very close to those in Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra works. (from Wikipedia)

A PDF scan is available here at Scribd.com

  The Abhidharmakośakārikā or Verses on the Treasury of Abhidharma is a key text on the Abhidharma written in Sanskrit verse by Vasubandhu in the 4th or 5th century. It summarizes the Sarvāstivādin tenets in eight chapters with a total of around 600 verses. The text was widely respected and used by schools of Buddhism in India, Tibet and East Asia.

  Vasubandhu wrote a commentary to this work called the Abhidharmakośabhāsya. In it, he critiques the interpretations of the Sarvāstivādins, Vaibhāṣikas and others of the tenets he presented in his previous work from a Sautrāntika perspective. This commentary includes an additional chapter in prose refuting the idea of the "person" (pudgala) favoured by some Buddhists of the Pudgalavada school. However, later Sarvāstivādin master Samghabhadra considered that he misrepresented their school in the process, and at this point designated Vasubandhu as a Sautrāntika - upholder of the sutras. (from Wikipedia)

PDF scan of the 80-pages summary by Stefan Anacker for Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies

PDF scans of complete Abhidharmakośabhāsya: vol 1, vol 2, vol 3, vol 4

Hard copy of the bhāsya is available for purchase on Amazon
Hard copy of the commentary by 9th Karmapa on Amazon

Study materials for Abhidharmakośakārikā by Korin Pokorny:

Historical overview and introduction
Chapter 1. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 2. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 3. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 4. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 5. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 6. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 7. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 8. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 9. Text. Explanations.
Everything in one PDF

  Abhidharma-samuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) is a Buddhist text composed by Asanga. Abhidharma-samuccaya is a complete and systematic account of the Abhidharma. (from Wikipedia)

An edited transcript of a series of lectures given by the Venerable Traleg Kyabgon, Rinpoche at Kagyu E-Vam Buddhist Institute (KEBI) from July to October, 1983

PDF scan of complete Abhidharma-samuccaya

Hard copy is available for purchase on Amazon.


Forced suppression of all cravings including harmless ones

Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why?

Cheesecake is just food. All sentient beings are sustained by food. Sentient beings are not sustained by wishes. Suffering is sustained by wishes. So don't wish for the cheesecake, just eat it if it's there, sharing it kindly with others.

Should ... forcibly suppress all their cravings

Generally speaking, suppressing a craving just makes it stronger.

But you can restrain or relinquish. Just observe the rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness.  That craving is impermanent and is not your self, it is not yours, it is not you.

...however...

If you cannot muster any skillful thought, then desperate measures are called for as described in MN20:

  With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they should squeeze, squash, and torture mind with mind.

Perhaps that would be overkill with...cheesecake?


What is the Buddhist point of view of the Law of Attraction?

My understanding of the Law of Attraction is that it is a way to affect what happens to you by thinking about what you want to have happen. If you want to receive money; you think about receiving money.

In Buddhism, the goal is to understand reality as it is. Understanding reality as it is, involves accepting reality as it is. Manipulating circumstances to provide material benefits for oneself would not really be a part of this. The teachings of the Buddha would guide one to giving up many desires rather than chasing after them; as I understand it.

One thing in Buddhism that might be similar is when some Buddhists take a vow to become a Boddhisatta/Boddhisatva. This vow sets their mind and intentions upon becoming a future Buddha . But my understanding of the Law of Attraction is that it is more in the here and now while a vow to become a future Buddha might have to be kept for many, many lifetimes to come to fruition.


Why do enlightened beings want to save sentient beings? Does everyone want to be saved?

If you knew of a really good restaurant, would you keep that knowledge to yourself, or would you take your friends there? If you saw a fantastic movie, would you go home and muse about it in private, or would you try to get your acquaintances to go see it? There's nothing mystical or magical here. People like to share good things with others; sharing knowledge of what's good creates value without cost. Why wouldn't one want to do it?
Now, people who lack understanding can get contracted. They worry that if they share knowledge of a good thing, it will create demand, then shortages. The thought of sharing the knowledge of something good invokes a fear of loss; the fear of losing something good invokes an urge to grasp; soon such people are trying to stockpile what's good, to decide who is worthy to acmes it and who is not, to police the boundaries of what they have determined is 'theirs' with all necessary force. The 'good' becomes like the ancient myth of the dragon's hoard: an accumulation of value for no purpose save to stave off that fundamental and abstract fear of loss and magnify the ego.
Are such people happy? Well, I suppose yes, but only in the twisted sense the they can share the knowledge of their own superiority with others: "I have, and you don't"; "we can do this, and they can't"; "our people are worthy, theirs are not". Their suffering isn't 'misery' in the classic sense, but more that they have no real understanding of their own selves, Like Milton's famous passage:
And they, so perfect is their misery,
Not once perceive their foul disfigurement,
But boast themselves more comely then before
And all their friends, and native home forget
To roule with pleasure in a sensual sty. — Comus, lines 73-7

Without that comparative — without the idea that 'the good' is in short supply, and that one has beaten others to secure it for oneself — this kind of wealth has no value, and makes no one happy at all.
Enlightenment is freeing — it frees us from the enchantment of that 'hoard' mentality, and the web of cravings that surround it — but it makes one conscious of the fetters that others are subject to. It's bittersweet. But still, it's a good that anyone who finds it would like to share, if they can figure out how.


Is OM an imported religious term from Hinduism?

OM is basically associated with Shaivya tradition of Hinduism i.e. those hindus who worship Shiva. And according to hindu mythology Shiva's abode is Kailash mountain which is in tibet. So inhabitants of that part of Tibet were using the word AUM or OM either for purpose of meditation or as ordinary word to  mean Consciousness. Hinduism was mostly rooted in Afaganistan, Pakistan and the Gangaitic plains of India during ancient time.

With this line of reasoning there is a heavy possibility that Hindus themselves adopted OM from Tibeteans.

OM is not used by Theravadins only by Vajrayana Buddhists and Mahayana Buddhist whose roots are in Tibet. So basically Tibetians are using it and it belongs to them.

So I wont say it is imported.


How do we break an attachment with the Buddha Himself?

For those attached to the form or personality of the Buddha, he taught to focus on the Dhamma (teachings) instead.
From Vakkali Sutta:

“For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see the
Blessed One, but I haven’t been fit enough to do so.”
“Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? One who sees
the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the
Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.


Rupa(form):

Patavi (earth element or hardness/softness)
Apo (water element or cohesion)
Tejo (fire element or heat/cold)
Vayo (air element or motion)
24 secondary elelments

Vedana(feeling)

bodily agreeable feeling
bodily painful feeling
mentally agreeable feeling
mentally painful feeling
indifferent feeling

Sanna(perception)

perception of form
perception of sound,
perception of odour,
perception of taste,
perception of bodily impression,
perception of mental impression

Sankhara(Mental Formations)

11 are general psychological elements,
25 lofty (sobhana) qualities,
14 karmically unwholesome qualities.

Vinnana(Consciousness)

eye consciousness
ear consciousness
nose consciousness
tongue consciousness
body consciousness
mind consciousness

Read more here


...or does it mean that the conditions might also dependant on a or all things?

Quate from ~ NO INNER CORE ~
An Introduction to the Doctrine of Anatta
by Sayadaw U Sãlànanda pg-26

  Furthermore, we must remember that nàma-råpa or khandhas are merely
  abstract classifications made by the Buddha, and, as such, they have
  no real existence as groups. That is, there is never the functioning
  of an entire entity or group known as corporeality or feeling or
  perception or mental formations or consciousness, but only the
  functioning of individual representatives of these groups.

  For
  example, with one unit of consciousness, only one single kind of
  feeling can be associated. Two different units of perception cannot
  arise at the same moment, and only one kind of consciousness,
  For example seeing consciousness, can arise at one time. A smaller or
  larger number of mental formations can arise with every state of
  consciousness. The groups never arise as a totality; only constituents
  or bits from a certain group can arise depending on conditions.

  There
  are no integrally functioning groups which can be called a self or a
  mind.

My Story,

  The conditions might also dependent on a or all things (C <-> X).

Consider a group of ants. willingness to talk each other the group emerge (Pali:"Uppaggathi").

What is group?
(each ant is not the group, the group is not the collection of ants, without ants also no group, group is not a separate thing from ants, ......).

What is reality?
Actually there is no group( according to our view only ants), but according the view of ants there is a group.("Avijja")

Due to communication, The group behave it's own will.(Consciousness -Intelligent/Madness)

What is the madness?
I am a Group. (My name is 'G'). I have my ants...and getting the feelings of pride, satisfaction...lost, die, decay, feel bad etc..

What is the intelligent?
Get understand  the reason for the process.
Find the way to stop this suffering.

What is Nibbana?
realize How it create and process. Hence escape from suffering.

(c <-> x)
c = Group's Consciousness.
x = Group Concept( with ants).

====================

Exsample 2.  "Players change but Team continues"

By considering a team the players always join and replace. but the team has its popularity glory etc continues to generations.

Is there a team? we can't say 'yes' or 'no'.

1).If some one is considering the team then the team is.
2).If anybody considering the players then no team.

we can't say both is correct, or wrong.
3). The team is relative to the viewers.(May be players or audience)

Like wise what we believe the "Soul" or "person(personality)" is a "Thing". But it is relative to the perception(subject) and precept(object).

So, We cant say there is something in every process. Also we cannot say there is nothing in any process. To be a process there should be a process viewer.
again the viewer is also a process. That is Interdependent.

c = players, x = team, so (c<->x)


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


Is owning a restaurant considered wrong livelihood?

It's not wrong livelihood unless you ask the butcher to kill for you.


What are the merits (results) of giving fearlessness (abhaya danna)

here is the sutta about giving a lack of fear

https://suttacentral.net/an8.39/en/sujato

  There are, bhikkhus, these five gifts, great gifts, primal, of long
  standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before
  adulterated, which are not being adulterated and will not be
  adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. What five?

  6(4) “Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of
  life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the
  destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable
  number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself
  in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction.
  This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing,
  traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated,
  which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not
  repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of
  merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to
  one’s welfare and happiness.

  7(5)–(8) “Again, a noble disciple, having abandoned the taking of what
  is not given, abstains from taking what is not given … abstains from
  sexual misconduct … abstains from false speech … abstains from liquor,
  wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness. By abstaining from
  liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, the noble
  disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear,
  enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom
  from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the fifth gift, a great
  gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated
  and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will
  not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This
  is the eighth stream of merit an.iv.247 … that leads to what is wished
  for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness.


when one Citta perishes,from where does the next arise?

Citta arises from mentality-and-materiality (nama-rupa). As long as the physical body (materiality) is alive, cittas will continue to arise.
Note: citta is of the same substance as consciousness.

Mentality-and-materiality is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate. SN 22.82
With the origination of mentality-and-materiality there is the origination of
citta. With the cessation of mentality-and-materiality there is the passing away of
citta. SN 47.42


I had peace initially while meditating and then lost it?

States of higher bliss (like Jhanas) might be addictive and therefore, it may become a hinderance in practice in the long run.

Important part is not to feel too attached to such states as they arise by letting go of desires. If they arrive, fine, but if they aren't there, it is fine too. In each of these states of feeling "good" and "bad" there is contained the opposite of it.

  Not seeing what is pleasant brings pain; seeing what is unpleasant
  brings pain. Therefore go beyond both pleasure and pain.

  Don't go selfishly attached to anything, for trying to hold on to it will bring you pain. When you have neither likes or dislikes, you will be free.

It is a hint conveyed there, in Dhammapada, that to achieve states of unconditional higher bliss, freedom and peace in the long run is to go beyond the desire for good, and aversion for not-so-good experiences.


I was wondering about the clearing away of the shrine. It could be that there exists an attachment to the shrine. By clearing it away when periods of stagnation occurs it is like affirming that a period of stagnation is "bad" or "not good" or "a problem".

These are merely concepts designated to a certain situation. In ultimate reality what you experience is only a combination of hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking.

Making the situation into either positive or negative is one's own work. We create our own suffering by wishing for reality to be something different than it already is.

The clearing away of the shrine could indicate that there is a self involved in this. It is like saying "i am angry" or "i am sad". There is an affirmation or validation going on here.

In reality there is mental and physical phenomena arising and ceasing on their own accord. Do not identify or take ownership of these impersonal and uncontrollable phenomena.

By reacting to them you provide them further fuel to burn. See them for what they are. You can turn these phenomena into objects of observation and create a foundation for cultivation of insights.

Lastly, here is a great dhamma talk by Ven. Yuttadhammo. Robin was so sweet to post it in one of my questions. In here it is talked about how one can adjust ones own practice by using 4 different tools. This talk is very beneficial for any meditator.

Hope this helps. If you need me to elaborate on anything i've just said, please let me know.


Why do I have to suffer due to a thing that a person in a past life has done that I have no control over?

Your friend believes they are suffering due to past life kamma. I have never read such a belief in the Pali suttas. Further, if this belief is true, there is no way for your friend to stop suffering since the causes of the suffering are inaccessible to them since the causes occurred in a past life.

AN 3.61 refutes the (sectarian non-Buddhist) view that suffering arises from past kamma. It states:

  When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential,
  monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected.

In Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta, it is not said suffering (dukkha) arises due to past kamma. It is only said that past kamma determines certain worldly conditions, such as being short-lived, long-lived, sick, healthy, ugly, beautiful, insignificant, influential, poor, rich, low-born (social status), high-born (social status), stupidity & wisdom.

In the teaching of Dependent Origination, which explains how suffering arises, the word 'kamma' does not even exist in the Pali (despite some erroneously translations including the term 'kamma-formations'). Therefore, past kamma is unrelated to Dependent Origination, which explains the ultimate cause of suffering is ignorance.

In the teaching of the Four Noble Truths, it is explained suffering arises due to craving & new becoming occurring in the here-&-now:

  And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the
  craving that makes for new becoming — accompanied by passion &
  delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for
  sensual pleasure, craving to be, craving not to be.

Your friend has the non-Buddhist sectarian view described in AN 3.61. Due to this wrong view, your friend has no solution to suffering & lives unprotected, as is warned in AN 3.61.


How does a monk address parents and relatives?

It may depend on the tradition, but in the Pali suttas, the language changes unequivocally to more formal modes of address like "gahapati" (householder), "upaasaka/upaasikaa" (lay follower), etc.

Then the clansman Raṭṭhapāla rose from his seat, and after paying homage to the Blessed One, he departed, keeping him on his right. He went to his parents and told them: “Mother and father, as I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is not easy while living in a home to lead the holy life, utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. I wish to shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness. Give me permission to go forth from the home life into homelessness.”

...

Then the venerable Raṭṭhapāla’s former wives clasped his feet and said to him: “What are they like, my lord’s son, the nymphs for whose sake you lead the holy life?”
“We do not lead the holy life for the sake of nymphs, sisters.”
“Our lord’s son Raṭṭhapāla calls us ‘sisters,’” they cried and right there they fainted.
Then the venerable Raṭṭhapāla told his father: “Householder, if there is a meal to be given, then give it. Do not harass us.”

-- (MN 82 - Bodhi, trans)


What are the famous debates in canonical Buddhist texts?

A really good look at the sort of debates Buddhists got into is in the Kathaavatthu - translated into English as "Points of Controversy". This is a later text, but outlines the many controversies and associated arguments. Examples of good debates in the suttas are MN 56 and DN 23.

As you say, debate plays an important part in the teaching, so the debates are really too numerous to list. I don't have any information on Dharmakirti though.


Upaya in Theravada Buddhism and the Pali Canon

AFAIK, breaking precepts that result in unwholesome Karma is never excused in Theravada Buddhism. Especially the five precepts.

Here are few examples of the Buddha using Upaya:

Showing nymphs to prince Nanada to break his attachment towards Janapada Kalyani.
Breaking Khema's infatuation with beauty by showing a beautiful maiden deteriorate in front of her eyes.
Teaching the stanzas to old brahmin who was mistreated by his four sons.

There might be teachings that appear complete opposite if you take the literal meaning of the words or disregard the context. But the teachings never conflict when you understand the full picture.

The Buddha would scold a monk to get him disciplined, but he would never use physical force. Such a need wouldn't even arise to the Buddha. Although monks are allowed by Vinaya to strike another in self defence.

The Buddha may decide not to keep to a lesser(non-offensive) Vinaya rule on certain occasions, but the monks do not have this freedom.


the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground

It is a fake Buddha quote. Check it here. He never said that.

But still, if you want to interpret it, this profound wisdom might suggest that, "only an uninstructed human will not understand dependent origination".

Only an uninstructed human  will need ground to know the truth that she has a feet. Doesnt sound buddhist to me at all.


In Buddhism, life starts at the moment of conception. So abortion breaks the 1st precept and causes bad Karma no matter how you try to justify it. Even if the husband's intention is to save the wife(mother), it still causes bad Karma. To give you an analogy, let's say a bear captured your wife and is about to kill her. Say you have a gun with you. You can shoot the bear and save your wife, but it still breaks the 1st precept and causes bad Karma.


Can students evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher?

One can immediately eliminate from consideration any teachers who might incur censure per AN8.88:

The lay followers may, if they wish, make a proclamation of confidence in a mendicant who has eight qualities.
They don’t try to prevent the lay people from getting material possessions. They don’t try to harm lay people. They don’t insult and abuse lay people. They don’t divide lay people against each other. They don’t criticize the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha. They’re not seen at an inappropriate place for collecting alms.

Note that many of the contemporary Sangha/teacher crises would raise doubts and lack of confidence because of the above.
The Rhinoceros Sutta suggests that we be prepared to wander alone as necessary in our search, not wasting our time, yet open to meeting the Sangha as found:

Follow that friend who’s deeply-learned,
Dharma-endowed and lucid, great,
knows meaning leading out of doubts,
fare singly as the rhino’s horn.


The important thing about metta is not the "object", but the result of the practice; it's point is so one becomes kind when kindness is not present.

Notice that Saying benevolence (metta) is rooted in ignorance if a particular practice is described in conventional terms is like saying dhamma is rooted in ignorance because it's also exposed in conventional terms.

Also, as a side note, Metta practice with a person as an object is a later development.

It would be problematic if, in this or any exercise, one nurtures and develops a wrong view (e.g. believing that a person has an eternal soul).

I'd guess the Ven. meant "seeing things as concepts" as something very specific: substituting reality for some concept. Conceptual thinking is largely intrinsic to thinking. it's problematic because it requires skill to not be confused, to not take something imagined as something real, to not develop wrong view (e.g believing an object is detached, eternal, subsisting without conditions).


Chinese Buddhists consider all people to be potential Buddhas

Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment?

In the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding, the Buddha teaches that "in any doctrine or discipline" that does not contain the Noble Eightfold Path, enlightened beings cannot be found:

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, these brahmans & contemplatives, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large — i.e., Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, & the Nigantha Nataputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?"

"Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."

"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."


For Theravada and some Mahayana traditions becoming a lay Buddhist is as simple as taking refuge in the Triple Gem of the Buddha,  Dhamma, Sangha and taking the 5 precepts. This is usually at a ceremony and "given" by the monks however the true taking  of refuge is something done in the mind,  not recited or given.

You are in short taking refuge, showing trust in the Buddha and his awakening,  the dhamma as the truth,  and the sangha as the keepers of that path,  more specifically the aryan(awakened)  Sangha and also all monastics.  Then you attempt to live a more skillful life that is beneficial to yourself and others by following the precepts to the best of your ability.

The ceremony usually involves a recitation in the Pali for Theravadan or the cultural language for the Mahayana.

This link to Bhikkhu Bodhi's article on the subject is great for further reading on the subject.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html

Going for refuge,  recited x3

Buddham saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Buddha;

Dhammam saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Dhamma;

Sangham saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Sangha.

And precepts:

(1) the training rule of abstaining from taking life;

(2) the training rule of abstaining from taking what is not given;

(3) the training rule of abstaining from sexual misconduct;

(4) the training rule of abstaining from false speech; and

(5) the training rule of abstaining from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.


What were the conditions laid down by Ananda when asked to be Buddhas personal attendant?

That's told in this biographical summary of Ananda:

The Buddha was never to give him any choice food
or garment (*) gotten by him,
nor appoint for him a separate "fragrant cell" (residence),
nor include him in the invitations accepted by the Buddha.
Further he was to be allowed to accept invitations on behalf of the Buddha;
to bring to the Buddha those who came to see him from afar;
to place before the Buddha all his perplexities,
and the Buddha was to repeat to him any doctrine taught in his absence.

It's the same list here.

And here:

  Ananda was in no way proud that the Master had preferred him to his
  greatest disciples, but instead asked a favor of having eight
  conditions fulfilled.

  First of all, the Master should never pass a gift of robes on to him;
  second, he should never give him any almsfood, which he himself had
  received; third, having received a dwelling place he should never give
  it to him; fourth, never to include him in any personal invitation
  (such as an occasion for teaching Dhamma when a meal would be
  offered).

  Besides these four negative conditions, he also had four positive
  wishes, namely: if he was invited to a meal, he asked for the right to
  transfer this invitation to the Buddha; if people came from outlying
  areas, he asked for the privilege to lead them to the Buddha; if he
  had any doubts or inquiries about the Dhamma, he asked for the right
  to present these to the Buddha at any time; and if the Buddha gave a
  discourse during his absence, he asked for the privilege to have the
  Buddha repeat it to him privately.

  He explained his reasons for these requests in this way: if he did not
  pose the first four conditions, then people could say that he had
  accepted the post of attendant only because of material gain. But if
  he did not express the other four conditions, then it could rightly be
  said that he fulfilled the duties of his post without being mindful of
  his own advancement on the Noble Path.

  The Buddha granted him these very reasonable requests, which were
  quite in accordance with the teaching.

I don't know which Sutta these are from.


Was Buddha deceiving others to get them on the path?

Please point out if my line of thought is flawed.

It is an established principle since the time of the Buddha there are two types of teachings:

mundane, worldly or moral teachings (lokiya dhamma)
supramundane, transcendent or noble teachings connected to emptiness (lokuttara dhamma)

The moral teachings bring moral (non-harming) benefits but do not remove attachment.

These teaching exist because the majority of people are unable to remove attachment.

Therefore, your line of thought is certainly flawed because how can it be expected of  most people to give up attachment towards sexuality, reproductive drives, partners, children & family?

If you expect all people to give up attachment & realise not-self, when they are actually incapable of doing so, it is you rather than the Buddha that is deceiving people.

Please refer to MN 117 (linked).

  Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming];
  there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a
  factor of the path. MN 117

Please also refer to MN 12 & MN 26 (below):

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a
  Tathagata's power...

  MN 12

  Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did
  so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much,
  those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good
  attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard,
  some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. MN 26

As for 'rebirth', the Buddha did not deceive or lie. Again, this is a long established principle.

The Buddha used certain well-defined words & it is not the Buddha deceiving people but people interpreting the Buddha's words in different ways that generate various ideas about 'rebirth'.

The commentaries state:

  The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.

  Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true.  On account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  Through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.

  Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  False speech does not arise in the Teacher,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks
  according to conventions.

  (Mn. i. 95)


Keeping rooted in the present in the face of past realities

Do vipassana, a retreat if possible. In every moment you have a memory, know that it is a memory, know about feelings which are coming up and so on. Your mind is in the habit of believing the images, but in fact what you see is just mental noise. Maybe you had past lives like that, but it does not matter (I bet you think it does matter; that's exactly the power these images have over you). The training in returning back to the present moment (by acknowledging whatever is happening and letting it go, time and again) will gradually break the attachment of mind to those images, so you will be able to stay more stable even if these images come.

Whatever in the mind is not a hindrance to be present, if seen clearly for what it is (body sensation, feeling, mind, mind object -- technically speaking); present cannot be destroyed but we are sometimes unable to tune in back to it, and that's why we train.

As a side note: if your condition is psychiatric (you are not able to take care of yourself in regular matters, often can't distinguish hallucinations from reality etc), do seek proper treatment first.


How to overcome the suffering of attachement to the body's continued existence (in Western modernity)?

In preparation for death you should:

accept the fact everyone must die and let go of the fear of death
not procrastinate meditation to develop wisdom
make your mind equanimous as possible to handle the pain of death so you do not lose the balance and get re born in a lower realm

In order to achieve 1, best is to contemplate that everyone must die and it is inevitable.

In preparation for 3, 2 will be helpful contemplation and meditation as each breath you take might very well be you last.

When you die your mind must be equanimous. This is the target of preparation to die. This can only achived through wisdom by realising the arising and passing away nature of things and realising any worldly phenomena experienced is unsatisfactory and not under one's control to make satisfactory hence let go and be equanimous no matter what your your experience is.

Meditating on a corpse is partly to realise that death is common to all and imminent, but another is to counteract the perception of beauty by seeing it rot. If the body is preserved it does not serve the latter purpose.

What you have to realise is beauty results when someone takes a certain shape and form here is beauty this might bring pleasure - attractive, displeasure - attractive, neutral - average or no special looks. When you analyse the anatomical parts separately this perception of beauty do not arise. Only when they are compounded and take a particular shape this perception of beauty happen. Likewise we take beauty or looks to be a constant than transitory. By looking at a old corpse you realize this, even perhaps even a old person. When it rots you see shape and form is subjected to decay, especially in a young corpse, and you see the transitory nature of beauty, i.e., something that was perceive so beautiful has suddenly become so repulsive. Since the subject is repulsive there is a change your mind may develop aversion towards the object or even the body itself. This is not the objective of repulsive meditation. You have to maintain absolute equanimity throughout, though initially if you are lustful some repulsion can be used to counteract it. If your mind is feeling disgusted at the subject or your body or someone else's body then this is not the type of meditation for your and can become dangerous as your mind is left unbalanced due to the meditation.

Also knowledge that whatever happened to the beauty of this person will also happen to me. The knowledge un un attempt to both beauty of oneself and others should happen.

You should meditate on how your mind constructs beauty and the sensation that follow and the attractions or aversions (you may just not like how someone looks) that result from this perceived beauty. Look at the sensation arising and passing regarding the subject of the meditation and realise the unsatisfactoriness in it (pleasantness when your mind perceives the attraction due to looks, unpleasantness when you perceive repulsiveness of looks and the subject, neutrality towards looks and the subject) and the non self nature. Though this develop revulsion and let go of the attachment to your body and mind or the 5 aggregates or the sense faculties or the world itself.


Buddhism ideals in the West before the 20th century

Apparently Pascal is aware of the same thing that the Buddha was aware of before he became enlightened: i.e. a view of reality which was the actual incentive for Gautama to look for enlightenment, asking something like,
"How can I be happy, even as a king, when illness and death are inevitable?"
This description of the "human condition" is presumably well-known to many other people too.
What's remarkable about Buddhism isn't its description of the problem: what's remarkable is the Buddha's description of the solution to that problem.
Pascal describes the problem but not the solution. He says (I paraphrase),

"We can't be happy. But there's a reason for that, i.e. our feeble and mortal condition. Even a king couldn't be happy without distractions."

Later,

"Thus goes life. We look for rest by overcoming a few obstacles. And when they're overcome, rest becomes insufferable."

And a few pages beyond that,

"Man, who hasn't been able to heal death, misery, and ignorance, has advised himself not to think about it.

The conclusion to that chapter is that such distraction is actually harmful because it stops us from looking for the real remedy:

puisque l’homme ne s’ennuie de tout, et ne cherche cette multitude d’occupations que parce qu’il a l’idée du bonheur qu’il a perdu ; lequel ne trouvant pas en soi, il le cherche inutilement dans les choses extérieures, sans se pouvoir jamais contenter, parce qu’il n’est ni dans nous, ni dans les créatures, mais en Dieu seul.
because man gets bored with everything, and searches for this multitude of activities only because he has the idea of the unhappiness which he has lost; which having not found (happiness) in himself, he (man) looks for it uselessly (in vain) in external things, never able to content himself, because it (happiness) is not in us, not in the creatures, but only in God.

In summary I think that Pascal is aware of the First Noble Truth but the rest of it is not especially Buddhist. The remedy which Pascal proposes (elsewhere in the book) is the Christian faith.


Is Uposatha on full moons or specific days?

I want to start observing Uposatha, but I'm a little unclear on what days it is. I'm finding calendars that it is the days of full moons in Sri Lanka or other countries. Should it just be celebrated on full moons then?

You can use the calendars from e.g. Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar etc.
More importantly is the practice itself, ie. the deepening of ones practice on special days of the months. Its really that which is essential from a practical Dhamma perspective.
The Wikipedia describes it as;

The Buddha taught that the Uposatha day is for "the cleansing of the defiled mind," resulting in inner calm and joy. On this day, both lay and ordained members of the sangha intensify their practice, deepen their knowledge and express communal commitment through millennia-old acts of lay-monastic reciprocity. On these days, the lay followers make a conscious effort to keep the Five Precepts or (as the tradition suggests) the Eight Precepts. It is a day for practicing the Buddha's teachings and meditation.

You can use full moon days in your country or you can use the traditional calculated calendar days.

Also, am I correct that the eight precepts to be practiced on Uposatha are. Are these correct?

The Eight Precepts are:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.

Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

Vikalabhojana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after noon).

Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.

Uccasayana-mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyamiI undertake the precept to refrain from lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place.

In the comments you asked about the 1st precept;

And should the meal before noon be vegetarian to coincide with the first precept?

Several factors must be fulfilled in order to break the 1st precept.
The five factors of the first precept are:

pano -- presence of a living being.
panasannita -- one knows that it is a living being.
vadhacittam -- the intention to kill.
upakkamo -- the effort to kill.
tena maranam -- the resulting death of that being.

If one of these factors are not fulfilled, the precept is still intact.
For more information, please see "Ask A Monk: Mark Zuckerberg, Vegetarianism and Killing" by Ven. Yuttadhammo.


In my article, Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. (Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014), I explain that karma was initially believed to be inevitable and that one had to live the consequences of one's actions no matter what. But this changed over time and various practices were developed to mitigate and eradicate evil karma. I didn't study "good" karma, but I see no reason for the same kind of reasoning to apply, i.e. good karma must be erasable in the systems of though in which the consequences of deeds are erasable.

One of the perennial problems for Buddhists is that, for the unenlightened, there is a vast predominance of craving and aversion, due to ignorance. Buddhists swing between enlightenment as transcendental (and therefore more or less unobtainable) and immanent in all beings (and therefore inevitable). The trouble is an immanent model is that it devalues the idea of enlightenment if everyone can get there, and will get there more or less with no effort. The trouble with transcendent models is no one is motivated by the unobtainable for long. Both extremes demotivate people and if on looks at Buddhist history we can see periods of stagnation when one or other model is unchallenged.

As part of this process. earlier models seem to get forgotten or repudiated and new ideas such as "interdependence" or "buddha-nature" get invented to fill the gap.

Many people think that Buddhism will inevitably mean that everyone will get enlightened. Mahāyāna Buddhism makes a big deal of the idea of "saving all being from suffering." Which suggests that they think such a thing is possible (despite the evidence of 2500 year of Buddhism). On the other hand saṃsāra (the cycle of death and rebirth) is usually portrayed in Mainstream Early Buddhist texts as beginningless and endless. Liberation is not found in saṃsāra, but by leaving it behind through ending rebirth. In this case we could have no expectation of everyone getting enlightened because that would mean the end of saṃsāra - a logical inconsistency.

A standard way of looking at karma is that none of our deeds "die" when our body dies. They are the condition which determines our next rebirth which will, in the more general way, reflect the life we have lived, for better or worse. But all deeds come to fruition at some point. Good deeds have to have a time limit also, else they would be permanent, and it is axiomatic in Buddhism that all things are impermanent.

Nāgārjuna spotted a little problem with this standard view however (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Chp 17). It is this: dependent arising specifies that when a condition ceases, the effect for which it is a condition also ceases. Thus there is a problem with karma because it requires that effects manifest a very long time after the condition has ceased. Again Buddhists proposed many solutions to this problem, but none of them actually solve the problem. The arguments are quite complex, but I tried to summarise them in an essay called The Logic of Karma. Unfortunately my conclusion is that the internal logic of all the existing explanations for karma are internally inconsistent. Nāgārjuna's answer was to argue that actions, agents, consequences, etc are all just illusions, which is not very satisfying.


There is nothing specific to Theravada nearby (other than what you found in Redwood Valley, which I'm guessing is Abhayagiri), but just in case it is helpful, here are some other monasteries and temples that are somewhat close:

Berkeley Buddhist Monastery
Buddha Gate Monastery
Wat Mongkolratanaram, a Thai Buddhist temple
Berkeley Buddhist Temple

Also less than an hour away is also the Insight Meditation Center, which is neither a monastery nor a temple, but is very much rooted in Theravada teachings (so maybe worth mentioning).


Categories of Dhammanupassana (Satipatthana)

The categories are:

5 hindrances
5 aggregates of clinging
6 internal and 6 external sense-bases
7 awakening-factors
4 noble truths

Sourced from: Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta


From SN 15.14:

At Sāvatthī.

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. … It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother.

Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”


Yes. For 2 reasons I can think of:

Creates good Karma on which some can give results in this life time
Makes you pleasant and likeable hence increasing chances of some one dealing with you and supporting you


What is the best translation of Anatta into English?

CORELESSNESS

Before we can pick a translation we must understand what it is that we are translating.

Prefix an- is a simple negation.
Hindu concept of Atman should not be confused with Aham (the simple reflexive "I", "ego" or "self") nor with Jiva (the vitality that makes an animate being an animate being). Atman means "inner spirit" or "core" and refers to what is supposedly the unchanging subject of experience, also known as "The Knower of the Field" (Purusha), and the source of its own activity. Basically, Atman is that fictitious little boss that sits in our head, looks through our eyes and decides what to do.
Pali ending of -tta often corresponds to English -ness:

  -tta: expresses the state, nature or quality of being that which is denoted by the adj. or noun: puthujjana, a common man +tta=puthujjanattaṃ, the state of being a common man; buddha, a buddha +tta=buddhattaṃ, Buddhahood; atthi he is +tta=atthittaṃ the state of "he is", existence.

From these three, the word can be translated as no-spirit-ness, or in proper English spirit-less-ness -- but such rendering is misleading. First, because in English "spiritless" has connotations of weak, demotivated and barely alive. And second, because Buddhism does not exactly deny "spirit" as an abstract aspect of relationships and interactions.

Another option is to take Atman as "subject" and render anatta as subjectlessness. This choice sounds true to the original meaning, but directly contradicts the western understanding of experience as comprised of subject and object.

A philosophically more correct option IMO would be core-less-ness. This matches both a simple understanding of anatta as an absence of substantial independent self in sentient beings, but also the wider Madhyamika philosophy which postulates that all entities are contextually defined imputations lacking any kind of self-identical ontologically existing core.

P.S. In western philosophy the notion of corelessness is sometimes identified with Bundle Theory of David Hume. Also, the relationship between observation and delineation of entities is one of the major topics of Hierarchy Theory.


You have correctly identified principles (IMO) of moral conduct in your OP,  @Dewmini  Gunasekera. For the benefit of others may I list them? While the five precepts are usually stated in negative terms they have their positive counterparts. They are the principles of non-injury and loving-kindness, the principles of honesty, the principles of sexual propriety, the principles of truthfulness and the principles of sobriety that a Lay Follower is to follow.

Some Buddhists observe the Eight Precepts once a month. These three additional precepts are:  Abstaining from eating after mid-day; Abstaining from dancing, singing, music and other forms of entertainment; and  Abstaining from garlands, scents, cosmetics and other kinds of adornment.

For those who are desire a greater degree of withdrawal from lay life, and are prepared to make a full-time commitment, there are two more precepts. They are Abstaining from luxurious beds, and Abstaining from accepting money. For lay Buddhists the keeping of the five basic moral precepts of is adequate but is in itself quite demanding.

One of the fundamental Buddhist principles of moral thought and action is kamma. Kamma is the Law of Moral Causation. Kamma, literally, means action; but, in its ultimate sense, it means the meritorious and demeritorious volition (Kusala Akusala Cetana). It is the principle of Kamma that prompts a person to refrain from evil, do good and be good without being frightened of any punishment or tempted by any reward. For Buddhism the relevant kind of action is volitional action, deeds expressive of morally determinate volition, since it is volition that gives the action ethical significance. Thus the Buddha expressly identifies action with volition. In a discourse on the analysis of kamma he says: "Monks, it is volition that I call action (kamma). Having willed, one performs an action through body, speech, or mind."

The Majjima Nikaya Sutta Number 24, Rathavinãta Sutta, shows us the importance of the Purification of Morality (Virtuous conduct). Moral discipline is the foundation for concentration, concentration the foundation for wisdom.  The Pali word for "moral discipline," is Sila. The observance of sila leads to harmony at several levels — social, psychological, kammic, and contemplative. At the social level the principles of sila help to establish harmonious interpersonal relations.

The ultimate moral code taught by the Buddha is beyond the changing conditions of the world. For example a disciple is a person who has submitted to the Blessed One and His Dhamma. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of Buddha and Dhamma requires real discrimination—the capacity to recognize the necessity of completely opening oneself and letting go. The more one surrenders, the more accountable one will become for ones own choices, ones own practice, and for the terms of one’s engagement in this path. If you find a person who understands submission to authority and you’ll see a person who is humble, full of love, unselfish, accountable, and personally responsible. Find a person who does not understand submission to authority and you’ll see a person who is prideful, full of criticism, selfish, self ruled, and spiritually irresponsible. Such mindful surrender is an opening to a deeper dimension of truth.


Hmmm this is where psychiatry start picking drugs for us... Keep in mind that is is purely theoretical until the Haldon Collider find evidence of other dimensions...

Mind and brain are not the same, but connected like two wheels learning against each others edges. So one might call it two different species. The Buddha spoke of 31 planes of existence, which could be understood as 31 universes. Universes would then also move and overlap each other. If overlapping, a nexus is created in which reactions happen. Now imagine that somehow that because of the nexus, the brain has an attraction on another species and this other species attached itself to the brain like a parasite... It would mean that if we are Citta, then we are the aliens from another universe experiencing this universe through the senses of a body...

But we lack so much data on so much to actually make technical descriptions on how it works... Much right now is just thesis stage. Nothing more.

It is said that you will get this experience in the ninth Jhana...


How does craving cause self-identity or self-habit?

It's kind of complex and would take a long time to explain in full details, but here's a simplified version:
There's a chain of reifications leading from craving to selfish action to self.
This is what was supposed to be explained in Dependent Origination but unfortunately most of the detailed descriptions  seem to be lost. From bits and pieces available in Theravada and Mahayana traditions we can try and recover what the full explanation probably looked like.
The exact sequence of reifications is likely impossible to determine, indeed that would require a detailed record of a developing mind, experience by experience and thought by thought, but getting at that level of details is not important anyway. What's important is to understand the general principle, the mechanism. Without further ado let's dive in.
When we crave something our mind projects a memory of a past experience onto an imaginary contact with an object. We reify this projection as "that object is nice". There's no "nice object" in reality, both "nice" and "object" parts come from our mind. The "object" is a reification as explained in my Emptiness answer. "Nice" is a past memory turned into an imaginary quality. Combining the two parts together and playing a game of make-believe pretending that there's in fact an actual "nice object" - is reification.
When mind gets obsessed with this idea of "nice object" it keeps coming back to it again and again. It keeps feeding this reification by adding more and more imaginary details and associations. It imagines the circumstances that would precede a contact with the object, a kind of automatic planning. Then at some point it elevates this obsession to the status of intent. That's when we feel that we have made up our mind, decided to pursue the object, made it our goal. This is the second reification, of obsession becoming an intent, a fixation on a plan of action towards a goal.
(Of course when I say "when we crave something the mind gets obsessed and keeps coming back" or "the mind imagines" etc. - the subject of such sentences is only a figure of speech. There's no mind apart from its content; the cravings, obsessions, reifications, projections - are the mind. In other words, the mind is not an agent that does things, it's just a process that's "happening".)
Then as we pursue the object and obtain it, we navigate the space (either physical space or the space of intermediate objectives) to get closer and closer to the desirable object. As we navigate the space we have to track our progress. We have to evaluate our position against the background of the circumstances. As we do that, we mentally "split" the totality of our mind into "the world" (our idea of the world to be precise) and the subject of navigation whose position we're tracking. The world serves as a semi-static background for the imaginary point moving towards its goal. We then reify this moving point to the status of "I".
Craving for an experience (just like its negative twin, aversion, or craving to get rid of something) creates motivation to act deliberately and selfishly - towards a goal. Deliberate pursuit of a goal requires position evaluation and status tracking, which creates an imaginary pair of "object & its background": the world vs the current position. This position is what gets reified as the self.


This problem is not only with buddhism ,rather with almost every religion.

During his time , Buddha never taught any tantra , mantra or yantra. Although his teachings vary from person to person but with common as 5 Percepts , cycle of suffering , impermanence & eight fold noble path. Satipatthana sutta came later for intelligent beings. There were people who wouldn't understand any meditation, buddha used to teach them karma path, eg.,  'truth' is  to be loved - for newly married couples  ,...

Even during buddha's time , few people didn't need any meditation as they remain aware every moment residing nearby him ,like Ananda. Even animals used to move towards awareness ,eg., drunk elephant bowed in front of buddha , lion wouldn't kill anyone near enlightened one.

Rise of tantra , mantra , yantra in buddhism was due to incapability(less power) of truth_seekers after buddha to remove bad omen from atmosphere just by upadesh(lessons) via voice & hence leading to basic teachings to be insufficient ,especially in Himalayas where to keep body warm , people were dependent on alcoholic_foods making them completely ineligible for basic teachings. That's where , Hindu Aghori teaching of tantra , mantra & yantra was mixed with basic teachings to generate a new teaching of Mahayana ,Vajrayana ,Tantrayana etc. with common as 5 Percepts , 8 fold noble path , cycle of suffering & impermanence.

Why buddha didn't teach tantra ,mantra or yantra?
     Because , these come under powers(Siddhis) and powers are merely used for fulfilling one's desire. This increases & gives more space for Ignorance.

When you are stuck in problem and haven't won your fear , you will definitely try to use powers to get out of that problem. This is the main reason behind power in buddhism , hinduism , Christian(white magic) etc...


What is the destination of a buddhist?

There is no particular destination a Buddhist aims for. The Buddhist goal is to be stress free eradicating the cause which is systematised as the 4 Noble Truths. Once you are stress free this is called Nirvana. The path to Nirvana is achived thought the 3 fold training.

Though the Abhidhamma classifieds Nirvana as a Lokuttara Bhumi, this is not a destination as such.

  Where should we go for the rest what is the rest ?

Rest is achived thought solitude. More on this see Viveka,nissita by Piya Tan.

  In mundane life living is so tough , facing sorrow , troubles and need to struggle for achieve something physical things and we get hurt because craving.

Mundane life is tough because of the presence of unwholesome roots which drive us. Will (chanda) to achieve a goal in the absence of craving hence there is no unwholesome root associated with it. [(Kosambi) Unnābha Sutta, Sangarava Sutta] So you should have the will to discharge duties and attain worldly goals without craving.

  ... So where to focus ...

You should keep your focus on feelings or sensations.

    With contact as condition, there is feeling; with feeling as condition, there is craving.
    But with the remainderless fading away and ending of that same craving comes the ending of
    clinging;

Source: (Samuday’atthangama) Loka Sutta

Also from one of Goenka's research papers: Why Vedana and What is Vedana?

    Eradicate the latent tendency of craving using pleasant sensations (by equanimous observation of the pleasant sensations understanding their changing nature), eradicate latent tendency of aversion using unpleasant sensations and eradicate the latent tendency of ignorance using neutral sensations.

Another passage from the same paper:

    Vedana is also a cetasikacetasika (mental concomitant). When the Buddha says, sabbe dhamma vedana samosaranasabbe dhamma vedana samosarana, it means that the experience of all mental concomitants includes and is inseparable from vedana. Hence according to my understanding of the teaching of the Buddha, not only do kayanupassanakayanupassana and vedananupassanavedananupassana involve the awareness of vedana but vedana also forms an integral part of dhammanupassanadhammanupassana and cittanupassanacittanupassana. A meditator whether practising kayanupassana or vedananupassana or cittanupassana or dhammanupassana, continues to be aware of vedana. He realizes the phenomenon of arising (samudayadhammanupassisamudayadhammanupassi) and the phenomenon of passing away (vayadhammanupassivayadhammanupassi) by maintaining awareness of vedana with the understanding of its impermanent nature. Thus he does not allow tanha to arise in response to vedana: He responds neither with tanha of craving towards a pleasant sensation nor with tanha of aversion towards an unpleasant sensation. A meditator maintains upekkha (equanimity) based on understanding of anicca (impermanence).

Ideally you should pratice the Vipassana to overcome craving and liberated your mind. You can try and take a course at http://www.dhamma.org/ or http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/. The level of support one can get in a forum or Q&A site like this is limited. To get rid of your pain you will have to take a formal meditation course.


Is mind the most valuable thing according to the Lord Buddha?

In MN 56, we see disciples of the founder of Jainism, Mahavira (called Nigantha Nataputta in the suttas) debate with the Buddha.

Apparently, Nigantha Nataputta taught that physical deeds weigh more heavily than mental deeds.

  “Reverend Gotama, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta doesn’t usually speak in terms of
  ‘deeds’. He usually speaks in terms of ‘rods’.”

  “Then how many kinds of rod does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe for
  performing bad deeds?”

  “Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes three kinds of rod for performing bad
  deeds: the physical rod, the verbal rod, and the mental rod.” .....

  “Of the three rods thus analyzed and differentiated, which rod does
  Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe as being the most blameworthy for
  performing bad deeds: the physical rod, the verbal rod, or the mental
  rod?”

  “Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes the physical rod as being the most
  blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or
  the mental rod.”

What did the Buddha teach?

  “Tapassī, the Realized One doesn’t usually speak in terms of ‘rods’.
  He usually speaks in terms of ‘deeds’.”

  “Then how many kinds of deed do you describe for performing bad
  deeds?”

  “I describe three kinds of deed for performing bad deeds: physical
  deeds, verbal deeds, and mental deeds.” .....

  “Of the three deeds thus analyzed and differentiated, which deed do
  you describe as being the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds:
  physical deeds, verbal deeds, or mental deeds?”

  “I describe mental deeds as being the most blameworthy for performing
  bad deeds, not so much physical deeds or verbal deeds.”

And later the Jain householder Upali came to debate with the Buddha.

  When he said this, the householder Upāli said to him, “Good, sir, well
  done by Tapassī! The honorable Tapassī has answered the ascetic Gotama
  like an educated disciple who rightly understands their teacher’s
  instructions. For how impressive is the measly mental rod when
  compared with the substantial physical rod? Rather, the physical rod
  is the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the
  verbal rod or the mental rod.”  .....

  “What do you think, householder? Take a Jain ascetic who is restrained
  in the fourfold restraint: obstructed by all water, devoted to all
  water, shaking off all water, pervaded by all water. When going out
  and coming back they accidentally injure many little creatures. Now,
  what result does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta say they would incur?”

  “Sir, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta says that unintentional acts are not very
  blameworthy.”

  “But if they are intentional?”

  “Then they are very blameworthy.”

  “But where does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta say that intention is classified?”

  “In the mental rod, sir.”

  “Think about it, householder! You should think before answering. What
  you said before and what you said after don’t match up. But you said
  that you would debate on the basis of truth.”  ......

  “Sir, I was already delighted and satisfied by the Buddha’s very first
  simile. Nevertheless, I wanted to hear the Buddha’s various solutions
  to the problem, so I thought I’d oppose you in this way.

  Excellent, sir! Excellent! As if he were righting the overturned, or
  revealing the hidden, or pointing out the path to the lost, or
  lighting a lamp in the dark so people with good eyes can see what’s
  there, the Buddha has made the teaching clear in many ways. I go for
  refuge to the Buddha, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha.
  From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who
  has gone for refuge for life.”

And using this simile and other similes, the Buddha convinced Upali that mental deeds weigh more heavily than physical deeds and verbal deeds. Thereafter, Upali became a Buddhist.


Why are there are only one Buddha per universe?

The teaching attributed to the Buddha of 'there can only be one self-enlightened Buddha in a world-system (lokadhātuyā)' is found in the Bahudhātuka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, which states:

  He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones (arahanto), Fully Self-Enlightened Ones (sammāsambuddhā), could arise
  contemporaneously in one (ekissā) world-system (lokadhātuyā) ― there is no such possibility.’

  And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully
  Self-Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a
  possibility.’

  Bahudhātuka Sutta

The Milindapañha, which is a later-day commentary (c. 100BC), provides a detailed explanation:

  This world system, O king, is a one-Buddha-supporting world; that is, it can bear the virtue of only a single Tathāgata. If a second
  Tathāgata were to arise the world could not bear him, it would shake
  and tremble, it would bend, this way and that, it would disperse,
  scatter into pieces, dissolve, be utterly destroyed. just as a boat, O
  king, might be able to carry one passenger across. Then, when one man
  had got on board, it would be well trimmed and able to bear his
  weight. But if a second man were to come like to the first in age and
  caste and strength and size and stoutness of body and build of frame,
  and he too should get on board the boat—would that boat be able, O
  king, to carry them both?

  Or suppose, O king, that a man had eaten as much food as he wanted, even so that he had filled himself with nourishment up to the
  throat, and he—thus satiated, regaled, filled with good cheer, with no
  room left for more, drowsy and stiff as a stick one cannot bend—were
  again to eat as much food as he had eaten before—would such a man, O
  king, then be at ease?’

  Suppose, O king, there were two carts quite filled with precious things up to the top, and people were to take the things from the one
  cart and pile them up on the other, would that one be able to carry
  the weight of both?’

  If, O king, two Buddhas were to arise together, then would disputes
  arise between their followers, and at the words: “Your Buddha, our
  Buddha,” they would divide off into two parties—just as would the
  followers of two rival powerful ministers of state. This is the other reason, O king, why two Buddhas could not appear at the same
  time.

  The passage (of Scripture) that the Buddha is the chief would become false, and the passage that the Buddha takes precedence of all would
  become false, and the passage that the Buddha is the best of all would
  become false. And so all those passages where the Buddha is said to be
  the most excellent, the most exalted, the highest of all, the peerless
  one, without an equal, the matchless one, who hath neither counterpart
  nor rival—all would be proved false. Accept this reason too as in
  truth a reason why two Buddhas cannot arise at once.

  Of other things also, whatever is mighty in the world is singular. The broad earth is great, O king, and it is only one. The ocean is
  mighty, and it is only one. Sineru, the king of the mountains, is
  great; and it is only one. Space is mighty, and it is only one. Sakka
  (the king of the gods) is great, and he is only one. Mara (the Evil
  One, Death) is great, and he is only one. Mahā-Brahmā is mighty, and
  he is only one. 51 A Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, is great,
  and he is alone in the world. Wherever any one of these spring up,
  then there is no room for a second. And therefore, O king, is it that
  only one Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, can appear at one time
  in the world.’

  Mil 5.5 11; Mil 235


Who are the past Buddhas mentioned in the Canonical Works?

"Historical" is fact established by historical science. Even historical existence of Shakyamuni is debated. There is no other historical buddhas besides Shakyamuni. That is other buddhas are present to us only as mythological characters.


Five aggregates vs dependent origination

We can't see five aggregates as it is. We can see a men, animals, Devas. Or good thing, bad thing. Or a beautiful thing, a ugly thing etc. But in reality, there is nothing like that. Everything just a thing or collection of several things. We only making things matter to us. Nothing else.

Refer this answer.

  If we took a tower build by stones, actually there is nothing called
  'tower' but set of stones. Like wise, if we consider a person, there
  is nothing but set of things. Lets say you are 40 years old now. What
  are the things you have in your body when you are 1 year old? Nothing
  right? But how you can be recognize now as same you in age 1? because
  of the connection between things changed.

How we see

Since we can't see things in their actual state, we make wrong decisions and doing things and making desires, clinging(උපාදාන) etc. (May be a man really loves his parents. May be we will kill animals to feed our children etc). This cause us to rebirth and we will reborn according to Karma we made. This cycle of born and death is dependent origination.

Most of the times lord Budhdha preaches not knowing things correctly is the starting point of the cycle. and then sanskaara, vinnana etc.


Husband and wife for hundreds of times of consecutive rebirth. How?

In AN 4:55 - The Same in Living, the Buddha visits a married couple in their residence. Here he is given alms food whereafter he gives a teaching to the householders.

Both householdes, Nakulapitā and Nakulamātā, asks the Buddha how they can remain together in this life and meet and be together in future lives as well.

The Buddha teaches: “Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives, they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity, and the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”

Below is the quoted sutta.

  The Same in Living (1)

  On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Bhaggas in Suṃsumāragira in the deer park at Bhesakalā Grove. Then, in the morning, the Blessed One dressed, took his bowl and robe, and went to the residence of the householder Nakulapitā, where he sat down in the prepared seat. Then the householder Nakulapitā and the housewife Nakulamātā approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side. The householder Nakulapitā then said to the Blessed One:

  “Bhante, since I was young, when the young girl Nakulamātā was given to me in marriage, I do not recall ever transgressing against her even in thought, much less by deed. We wish, Bhante, to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”

  The housewife Nakulamātā in turn said to the Blessed One: “Bhante, since I was a young girl given to the young householder Nakulapitā in marriage, I do not recall ever transgressing against him even in thought, much less by deed. We wish, Bhante, to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”

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

  Both husband and wife are endowed with faith,
  charitable and self-controlled,
  living their lives righteously,
  addressing each other with pleasant words,

  Then many benefits accrue to them
  and they dwell at ease.
  Their enemies are saddened
  when both are the same in virtue.

  Having practiced the Dhamma here,
  the same in virtuous behavior and observances,
  delighting after death in a deva world,
  they rejoice, enjoying sensual pleasures.


Jhāna, seeing the welfare of self and other

Sangaravo Sutta: Sangarava -- The Hindrances (SN 46.55) says that.

It says that ...

  he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, nor can he know and see what is to the profit of others, or of both himself and others

... when overwhelmed and possessed by hindrances including ...

sense-desires
ill-will
sloth-and-torpor
worry-and-flurry
doubt-and-wavering

... but conversely ...

  when a man dwells with his heart not possessed, not overwhelmed by sense-desires... ill-will... sloth-and-torpor... worry-and-flurry... doubt-and-wavering... [like the five bowls of water not as previously described, but 'clear, limpid, pellucid, set in the open']... then he knows and sees, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both himself and others. Then even sacred words he has not long studied are clear to him, not to mention those he has studied.

This sutta says that about "hindrances" and "profit of self and other", but I don't think it mentions jhāna.


I quote from here is a short and blunt answer. This answer does not mean renounce your family but merely teaches a way to have less mental attachment to them. The problem is of one's mind, not of the world.

  § A woman came to Wat Dhammasathit to observe the precepts and
  meditate for a week, but by the end of the second day she told Ajaan
  Fuang that she had to return home, because she was afraid her family
  couldn't get along without her. He taught her to cut through her
  worries by saying, "When you come here, tell yourself that you've
  died. One way or another, your family will have to learn to fend for
  themselves."


Is this fake Buddha quote synonymous with Buddhas quote in Dhammapada?

It is somewhat synonymous, just a bit simplified.
The original quote is:

yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman'ti
SN 35.74

or

"whatever is samudaya-able -- all that is nirodha-able".

Samudaya means "to come together", "to arise from coincidence of multiple conditions". Nirodha means "to stop" or "to arrest".
So the detailed meaning of the phrase is "Whatever phenomenon emerges from the coincidence of multiple conditions, it will be no more when one of those necessary conditions is removed so it no longer contributes to the arising of the phenomenon."
Compare that with "everything that has a beginning has an end". If you really think about it, the meaning is the same, but while the detailed analysis is very obvious in the original quote  it's rather hidden in the simplified one.


If good householder wouldn't not have desire for another becoming and certain inclination,, he wouldn't have come here, or? So after dying off elsewhere, lack of satisfaction, breaking apart there, desire for not-becoming, he became another time, in this realm, not sure of what he will meet, but dying of another time here is for sure. But if he gains awakening here, understanding the way it is, arises, decays, he will no more take birth, no more ignorance, not-knowing, no more craving for becoming anywhere another time.
Birth is taken, where ever possible and fit for once inclination, if not having gained full awakening, good householder. Bhava (becoming)-mind arises for beings after the break up of the Body. Why? Because of Tanha (thirst, craving) based on not-knowing, ignorance, Avija. The sequence in detail, of the wheel of wandering, on is given generously by the Sublime Buddha in the secound Noble Truth. What ever takes Birth is subject to decay, suffering.
May good householder had a good blessed, even last birth, here.
Some words might be of additional support for understanding: Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances?
[Note that this isn't given for wandering on, stacks, exchange, trades for it, but for release from this wheel]