Is there a objective book on how vipassana of U. Mahasi and S.N. Goenka works?

Since most books are subjective, I doubt there can be found an objective book on how vipassana of U. Mahasi and S.N. Goenka works. These methods are merely constructed out of theories. For example, the Buddha taught all conditioned things are impermanent. If you watch leaves falling from a tree or waves lapping on the seashore, you will see impermanence. However, this does not mean watching falling leaves or lapping waves will bring enlightenment. Similarly, just because U. Mahasi and S.N. Goenka have chosen impermanent meditation objects, it does not mean these methods alone will work.

In the Pali suttas, it is reported the Buddha taught meditation as the development (bhavana) of concentration (samadhi). Properly developed samadhi has two fruits or results, namely, samatha (tranquility) and vipassana (clear seeing of higher truth). If the mind does not have samadhi (which itself is comprised of a degree of selflessness or mental purity) then watching the impermanence of falling leaves, lapping waves, abdomen rising & falling or painful sensations probably will not result in sufficient vipassana to end the defilements and liberate the mind.

Thus, to answer your questions:

Noting and paying attention to the movement of the stomach is theoretically supposed to create understanding because the mind is supposed to see constant impermanence. If the mind can see every expansion of the stomach and every contraction of the stomach then it can see things (such as the stomach, breathing & mind consciousness itself) only last for a moment. If such clear seeing of impermanence occurs, then the mind will know all things, including life itself, are impermanent. The mind will be peaceful & calm when impermanence (such as loss of property, loved ones or life) occurs.  But, as I previously said, if the mind has too much ego, the meditation really won't be effective because there is too much ego in the mind. The mind is too impure. The seeing of impermanence is not clear enough and not strong enough.
Not reacting to sensations throughout the body theoretically leads to insight because two things occur: (i) concentration is developed via non-reacting; and (ii) since reacting is disturbing, non-peaceful or suffering, by non-reacting, the mind can have the insight that non-reacting is peaceful. However, if samatha (tranquility) and selflessness has not been developed then there will not be much peace to be felt via non-reacting. In summary, the Buddha's path is comprised of eight factors. Each of the eight factors must work together to get the result of liberation & peace.
Similar to the above, restraint of the senses and mindfulness leads to liberation because the mind is not stirring up reactions and defilements that are suffering. However, the mind must have some peace before restraint can lead to liberation. If the mind has many hindrances & defilements, trying to restrain the mind will be like trying to restrain a tidal wave or tsunami.

In conclusion, the Buddha's path is the Noble Eightfold Path. The whole path must be practised, which includes wisdom-based-morality and samadhi. Trying to follow moral rules without wisdom about them will also not work. Trying to develop samadhi without wisdom also will not work. Trying to develop wisdom alone also will not work.

Vipassana is one of the final results of the path, similar to the top of a tree. A tree is not climbed from the top. A tree is climbed from the bottom. Similarly, attempting to begin meditation with vipassana probably won't work. Instead, we should try to make the mind calm by learning how to end hindrances and sit at ease with awareness of breathing. "Vipassana" (knowing & seeing things as they actually are) is something that occurs without any act of will. You may refer to Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will.


Significance of the word "wealth" in Jaravagga

The PTS dictionary says,

  Dhana (nt.) [Ved. dhana; usually taken to dhā (see dadhāti) as "stake, prize at game, booty," cp. pradhāna & Gr. qe/ma; but more likely in orig. meaning "grain, possession of corn, crops etc.," cp. Lith. dūna bread, Sk. dhānā pl. grains & dhañña=dhana -- like, i. e. corn, grain] wealth, usually wealth of money, riches, treasures. 1. Lit. D i.73 (sa˚); M ii.180.; A iii.222; iv.4 sq.; Nd2 135 (+yasa, issariya etc.) Th 2, 464 (+issariya); J i.225 (paṭhavigataŋ karoti: hide in the ground), 262, 289; ii.112; iv.2; Sn 60, 185, 302; Pv ii.610; DhA i.238. Often in combn aḍḍha mahaddhana mahābhoga to indicate immense wealth (see aḍḍha) PvA 3, 214 etc. (see also below ˚dhañña). -- 2. fig. Used in the expression sattavidha -- ariya -- dhana "the 7 fold noble treasure" of the good qualities or virtues, viz. saddhā, cāga etc. (see enumd under cāga) D iii.163, 164, 251; VvA 113; ThA 240.

In summary it means something like "treasure": whether that's money or good qualities or virtues.

Some comments:

It can't mean (wouldn't make sense meaning) literally only 'money' because it says, " If he had learnt to look after his riches in the first stage of his life...,  if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have been an arahat" because though bhikkhus "accumulate virtue" they don't "look after money".
An origin story of the Buddha was that someone (I have forgotten who) prophesied that he would become a world-ruler or a spiritual emancipator (and his father wanted the former which is why he tried to keep him isolated in his palace, unaware of the wide world and of its spiritual needs).
According to what I've read e.g. (The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity) Buddha doesn't condemn riches for the layperson. Although they're not ultimately or permanently satisfying (which is a reason why he suggests 'renunciation' instead, for monks), but riches are useful and there's some advice in the canon about how a lay person should fulfill their role within society.


If you are looking for a place to ask questions about Buddhism (or to read through the many questions that have already been answered); this is a good place to do that. Our format is that anyone who believes they have the answer to a question may submit that answer for your consideration. So questions will be answered by both monastic and lay people of various traditions. If you are looking for an answer from a specific tradition, simple tag your question as you've done above.

Among the many questions that have already been answered on this site are community wikis such as this list of introductory books. Another online resource is this video wiki created by a Buddhism.SE moderator and frequent contributor, Venerable Yuttadhammo. Hundreds of questions and answers in video form are included here.
For local resources here is a short list of Theravada centers in your area.
Once you've had a chance to check these resources, if you have additional questions, please feel free to submit them! Our New User Welcome gives some tips on how to best use this site. Best wishes!


Purificatiin of view:

  'The divine eye is purified since it is a cause for Purification of View (diṭṭhi-visuddhi), owing to seeing passing away and reappearance of beings. One who sees only passing away and not reappearance assumes the annihilation view (uccheda-diṭṭhi); and one who sees only reappearance and not passing away assumes the view that new beings appear (nava-satta-pātubhava-diṭṭhi). But since one who sees both outstrips that twofold [false] view, that vision of his is therefore a cause for Purification of View. And the Buddha's sons see both of these.' (PsA 259; Vism 423)

Wisdom and the Seventy-Three Kinds of Mundane and Supramundane Knowledge, given by Ven. Bhikkhu Ñāṇadassana


If you don't have a pull factor (natural inclination), then you need a push factor. These are the two factors of motivation.

Suppose your doctor tells you that you have early stage of lung cancer. He tells you not to worry because it can be easily treated due to early detection, but you must give up smoking for good.

So, what do you do? Give up smoking of course. You tried before and failed, but now you have a push factor.


Reborn in heaven and perfect sila/morality

No. A person does not need to have perfect morality to be reborn in a heavenly realm. The quote below should be self-explanatory.

From MN 136:

  "Now there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had
  wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps)
  the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the
  good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right
  view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And
  that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But since he
  has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he will feel the
  result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some
  subsequent existence.


According to Theravada tradition, was Siddharta Gautama illuminated after meditating under the Bodhi tree?
There's a summary here:

The Buddha and His Dhamma
Now he was alone, and complete solitude allowed him to pursue his quest undisturbed. One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, making a firm resolution that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended he entered into deeper and deeper stages of meditation until his mind was perfectly calm and composed. Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.
For several weeks the newly awakened Buddha remained in the vicinity of the Bodhi Tree ...

I think that's a paraphrase of what's said in several suttas, e.g. MN 26 and Ud 1.3, and others.
But Theravada tradition says that one cannot reach Nirvana while the five aggregates exist, since them are dukkha.
I don't think so.
The first noble truth (in SN 56.11) says, something like, that that the "clinging aggregates" or "grasping aggregates" are suffering (or if not "are suffering" then something like, "are unsatisfactory") ...

Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

... that dukkha arises with craving ...

It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure in various different realms. That is,
yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṃ—
craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.
kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.

... and ceases with the cessation of craving (it doesn't say "with the cessation of the aggregates") ...

Now this is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—
It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not clinging to it.
yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo.

I think that "with nothing left over", there, doesn't mean "without aggregates", it means with no craving nor any tendencies that gives rise to craving, e.g. āsava and anusaya.
Conversely, the Buddha is liberated -- I think that's said or implied in so many suttas that it's difficult to choose one reference to cite, but see e.g. Why is the Buddha described as trackless?
Or how otherwise do Theravada explain that Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree?
I think that you're associating the Buddha with the aggregates, i.e. that you're arguing something like:

Siddharta Gautama is the aggregates
The aggregates didn't cease to exist
Therefore Siddharta Gautama didn't cease to exist

However identifying the aggregates as "self" is contrary to the anatta doctrine -- and the Anuradha Sutta for example says it's inappropriate to regard the Tathagata as being the aggregates, as being in the aggregates, as being without the aggregates.
I think that Theravada (and/or the Pali suttas) identify two types of nibbana, i.e. nibbana-with-remainder (with aggregates remaining) and nibbana-without-remainder -- the latter is called parinibbana, see e.g. the "parinibbana sutta" -- see also e.g. AN 4.23 which refers to anupādisesa:

From the night when a Realized One understands the supreme perfect awakening until the night he becomes fully extinguished—through the natural principle of extinguishment, without anything left over—everything he speaks, says, and expresses is real, not otherwise.
Yañca, bhikkhave, rattiṃ tathāgato anuttaraṃ sammāsambodhiṃ abhisambujjhati yañca rattiṃ anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyā parinibbāyati, yaṃ etasmiṃ antare bhāsati lapati niddisati sabbaṃ taṃ tatheva hoti, no aññathā.


What is the modern understanding about Four Great Elements and Reality?

Modern Understating

There are infinite number of Buddhas in the past (though only few are recorded), and they preached the same Dhamma. With respect to Science this is always in constant evolution in terms of the understanding and body of knowledge. Though Science generally may not refute Buddhism drawing parallels may not be useful.

Understanding the 4 Elements

Understanding of the 4 elements should be at the experiential level or at the level that is felt. Conceptual understanding falls into the sphere of Perception, through this is also essential, but as stepping stone to the next item which is putting into practice with a view to experience it for one self.


There was a North American academic named Ian Stevenson who spent decades investigating people who claimed to remember their previous lives.
Some people cite him as having found evidence of rebirth.
In summary, he sought and collected stories, and discarded the stories which were proven untrue or fabricated. After discarding the untrue stories, what he had left were the stories which he didn't prove were untrue (i.e. stories which appeared to be true).
The Skeptic's dictionary entry on that subject says there's no way to use that methodology to prove that rebirth doesn't happen,

The historian, the journalist, and the jury member, on the other hand, must constantly deal with issues like lying, hoaxing, and fraud. Most important, though, is the fact that historians, journalists, and jury members have to evaluate the words and perceptions of people, rather than the structure or properties of things. Stevenson's work would require constant vigilance against being deceived by his subjects. Furthermore, since we know that people can have memories and be completely unaware of the source of those memories, he would have to be vigilant in identifying which memories were likely the result of cryptomnesia. Also, there is the major problem of providing an explanation for how a personality can survive death and transfer to another body, something Stevenson had no answer for. Finally, the most problematic issue Stevenson would have to face using his method of collecting stories would be the fact that nothing could ever count against his hypothesis. Stories that are rejected as hoaxes, frauds, questionable, unreliable, or based on experiences in this lifetime would be discarded, but they wouldn't count against the reincarnation hypothesis. The worst case scenario for Stevenson's method would be that his evidence does not compel belief and that even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations. Unfortunately, that is also his best case scenario. Most people are not likely to be too impressed when they realize that all Stevenson had to show for over forty years of research is that it is now false to claim that there is no evidence for reincarnation. It is still quite reasonable, however, to claim that there is no compelling evidence for reincarnation.
[...]
Stevenson would conduct dozens of interviews and spend hours searching through hospital and court records, trying to establish that there was no fraud involved, that the story wasn't contaminated, that there weren't errors in translation, that the events weren't just coincidental, that the child couldn't have gotten the information in any normal way. When he satisfied himself that there was no normal explanation for the concordance of story and facts, he would count the case as "solved" and see it as a piece of positive evidence supporting the reincarnation hypothesis. If he got a PLE story but couldn't corroborate it with facts, he called the case "unsolved." There is nothing that could be discovered by this method that could ever falsify the reincarnation hypothesis. And it remains a mystery as to what further research, that might be falsifiable, could ever evolve from Stevenson's technique.

Based on this Skeptic's dictionary entry, IMO there is no "proof of non-rebirth" (otherwise they might have referenced that proof in the Skeptic's dictionary). The most they can say, their strongest argument against his work, is, "There is nothing that could be discovered by this method that could ever falsify the reincarnation hypothesis."
In other words the skeptic seems to me to be claiming that the theory is, not "proven untrue", but rather "unfalsifiable" ... perhaps analogous to the way in which 'existence of God' or 'Russel's teapot' are unfalsifiable.


What does buddhism say about mind and heart?

In spiritual traditions, the heart is not the physical heart, but the intuition, the non-discursive or non-conceptual mind.

The conceptual mind gradually auto-emerges thanks to the mechanism known as Dependent Origination. As conceptual mind develops, it constructs an experience of a world, Samsara. Or we could say, the conceptual mind and Samsara are one and the same. All our griefs and worries exist inside the framework of conceptual mind. For example the concept of Death is like that, it's an abstract concept, in reality there is no death but endless transformation.

The non-conceptual mind aka heart does not operate in such terms, so it does not have the same issues. The Buddhism I was taught is pretty much in favor of re-discovering and utilizing one's "heart". In Early Buddhist texts the process of letting go of the concepts until only the non-conceptual remains is described as "animitta" or The Signless.

You can read more about it in this nice article:  http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Articles/Signless%20Meditations%20in%20Pali%20Buddhism_JIABS_Harvey_1986.pdf


How do zen practitioners balance the mix between Buddhism detachment and Taoism attachment?

To say that Zen = Buddhism + Taoism is an utter simplification. To say that Buddhism seeks "detachment from all existence" is not at all accurate and to say that Taoism seeks "attachment to all existence" is a caricature.

And yet I will answer this question on its own terms, to help you clear your doubts:

If you detach from all existence, completely 100%, at the end there won't be "you". If you unite with all existence, completely 100%, at the end there won't be "you". In both cases the result is the same.

That said, you should study the Goal of Buddhism (Nirvana or Enlightenment) and the Goal of Taoism (living in harmony with the Tao) to understand what both of them really mean, so you can go beyond simplistic definitions and understand what this is actually about.


The meditation taught in the old scriptures includes being aware of both long & short breathing.

Long breathing is calming & soothing, which is why it feels preferable.

Short breathing can be a sign of stored tension coming to the surface of awareness; therefore short breathing can feel uncomfortable.

However, it is sometimes important to allow tensions to rise up so they can dissolve. This requires patience & forbearance. Once tensions & short breathing resolve, the breathing will naturally become long again.

If short breathing becomes too uncomfortable, you can deliberately take some deliberate long breaths to slow down & calm your body & mind.

The old scriptures state:

  There is the case where a monk...sits down...holding his body erect...setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes
  in; mindful he breathes out.

  [1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.'

  [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.

  Anapanasati Sutta


Differences in attainments among Arahants

In the Pali Canon Study "Nibbana as Living Experience / The Buddha and The Arahant" by Lily de Silva a well described section on the Four Analytical Knowledges can be found. Here is a quote from the study:

Among arahants too there are differences in attainment. In one place the Buddha states that in a group of 500 monks sixty are arahants with the six higher knowledges (cha.labhi~n~naa), sixty are arahants with the three clear knowledges (tevijjaa), another sixty are arahants liberated from both parts (ubhatobhaagavimutta), while the rest are arahants liberated by wisdom (pa~n~naavimutta).
The highest qualifications among arahants are the six higher knowledges (cha.labhi~n~naa) and the four analytical knowledges (catupa.tisambhidaa) . The former comprise psychic powers, the divine ear, thought reading, retrocognition (the ability to recall one's former births), clairvoyance (the ability to see beings dying and being reborn according to their kamma), and the knowledge of the destruction of defilements. The four analytical knowledges comprise insight into the meaning of words (attha), truth (dhamma), use of language (nirutti), and originality of ideas (pa.tibhaana) . They seem to pivot round the ability to teach the Dhamma through the medium of verbal communication with appealing and meaningful ways of presentation.
Some arahants are endowed with the special accomplishment of the fourfold analytical knowledge (pa.tisambhidaa-~naa.na), which qualifies them even more thoroughly for creative work. These are spelt out as analytical knowledge of the meaning or goal, profound truth, language or the medium of communication, and originality of expression (attha, dhamma, nirutti, pa.tibhaana). These four special qualifications make arahants experts in communicating to their audience the exact meanings and goals of the profound truths they have discovered, through the medium of refined language, using their own original modes of expression such as eloquent similes, metaphors, etc. Several arahants, both male and female, are recorded as eloquent speakers and erudite exponents of the Dhamma. Special mention must be made of the Theragaathaa and Theriigaathaa, which comprise poems of exquisite beauty. They are utterances of monks and nuns embodying their varied experiences. Literary critics rank them among the best lyrics in Indian literature. They remain unrivalled in the literary history of the world as creative writing issuing forth from the undefiled purity of the human heart and the nobility of human wisdom. They are ever-fresh fountains of inspiration to the truth-seeker and lasting monuments to the creative genius of the liberated beings.

For more information on this topic there is a comprehensive and detailed exposition called "The Fourfold Analytical Knowledge in Pali Literature" by Ven. Bhikkhu Kusalaguṇa. Here is a quote from the abstract:

The fourfold analytical knowledge (catu-paṭisambhidā) is an integrated set of knowledge gained by the noble persons (ariya) who had developed necessary conditions eligible for this distinctive attainment. The fourfold analytical knowledge consists of:
(1) The analytical knowledge of result (attha-paṭisambhidā),
(2) The analytical knowledge of cause (dhamma-paṭisambhidā),
(3) The analytical knowledge of language (nirutti-paṭisambhidā), and
(4) The analytical knowledge of knowledge (paṭibhāna-paṭisambhidā).
The noble persons who possess these kinds of knowledge are able to penetratingly understand the four types of ultimate realities (paramattha-dhammā), namely, consciousness (citta), mental concomitants (cetasika), matters (rūpa) and Nibbāna, the unconditioned element, and are capable of elucidating them with lucid language and exposition. The Buddha, Venerable Sāriputta and other great noble disciples were real legends in this field of comprehension and explanatory dexterity, as evidently described in the Pāḷi literature.
Each of the fourfold analytical knowledge possesses different analyticities. The analytical knowledge of result has the power to understand fully the so-called resultant phenomena including all cause-produced things, meanings of the Buddha’s Word classified into nine categories such as sutta (discourses in prose), geyya (discourses in prose and verse) and so on, and the unconditioned element, Nibbāna. Similarly, the analytical knowledge of cause has the ability to know various causative phenomena that comprise all result-generating causes, the Buddha’s Word, and the Noble Path leading to the realization of Nibbāna. The analytical knowledge of language, on the other hand, is endowed with the capability of recognizing the grammatically correct usage and the grammatically incorrect usage of Pāḷi language, and is able to understand a wide range of Pāḷi terminologies connected with the ultimate realities. The analytical knowledge of knowledge is, however, capable of taking the foregoing knowledge as objects, and of comprehending their functional activities.
The attainment of the fourfold analytical knowledge is nothing but the accomplishment of collectively conditioning factors accumulated in both the past and present lives. The eight conditions must be fulfilled in order to give rise to the fourfold analytical knowledge, they are: attainment of the highest mundane insight knowledge (knowledge of equanimity towards formations) in the past lives, great erudition, proficiency of dialects, knowledge of Scriptures, inquiry, attainment of the Noble Path, association with teachers, and acquisition of good friends.


Enlightened people do not overgeneralize.

(This can be supported by both Pali Canon as well as Mahayana sources.)

Concepts like "enlightened", "person", "I", and "thinking" are all overgeneralizations, which enlightened people do not dwell in.

They may use generalizations as skilful means, to communicate the teaching, but they themselves are not bounded by them.


What is the mean of 'samma ditti' in Ariya-Ashtanga Marga?

If a virtuous person were to constantly reflect and expand upon even one strand mentioned in the Samma Ditti sutta referred by Suminda above, it will be for his long term benefit.

For example one can take the section on the four types of Food and constantly reflect on that reality and confirm that view.

Mr. Piya Tan has written an in depth commentary of the Samma Ditti sutta here.

http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/11.14-Sammaditthi-S-m9-piya.pdf


Identification of a Buddhist text written in classical Chinese or Japanese

It is classical Chinese written in part of Chinese character and part of Japanese kanji Character,  it is still Chinese text, I can identify it because I am a Chinese speaker.
Yes it is Lotus Sutra
Kumārajīva and Yao Qin translated an ancient book "龜茲文本" to Chinese, that is Lotus Sutra

I can only answer this, I have no information for the rest of questions


Is it possible to eliminate all attachments?

According to Buddhism, attachment(Upadana) is caused by Tanha(craving) and according to the Second Noble Truth, craving is the cause of all suffering. According to the Third Noble Truth there is a cessation of all suffering. According to the Fourth Noble Truth, there is a way to achieve the aforementioned cessation of suffering.

Hence it is one of the core claims of Buddhism that all attachments can be eliminated. There is no Buddhism without this claim.


Yes and no.Dreams sometimes makes sense sometimes they don't.It's not an isolated event people  sometimes experience dreams that do take place in the future.And it's getting harder to just dismiss it as mere coincidence (Precognitive Dreams).This is just a natural functioning of the mind.Whether dreams makes sense or not is not what releases us from suffering.


What is the process that creates "Saṅkhāra"

Is it right if I say the origin of Saṅkhāra is not by a natural process of the mind

It is a natural process that when we get feeling born from contact of the faculty with an external object which you react with craving and clinging for a worldly person. You do have control over the process as this point there you can be just see the airing and passing of the feeling born of contact of the faculty with an external object, (phenomena what is felt or known) and be completely be equanimous towards the feeling without clinging and craving. The latter is going against the stream and requires effort. This is going against the natural process this happens.

  ... but it is a byproduct of Avidyā which dominates the non-arahant mind?

This is a by product of Avidya. It is in short reaction to sensations / feelings with craving and clinging.

The way to overcome this is given in the Pahana Suttas (or the way to let go): Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2. There are times that this process is formalised as understanding 4 Noble Truths.


What is the meaning of "a ray of light which illuminates thousands of buddha fields in the east" in the Mahayana Lotus Sutra?

The Buddha first poses 56 stanzas to Manjushri in the beginning of the Lotus Sutra, some of the last stanzas mention fields:

(49). O how powerful is the Leader of men! how extensive and bright is his knowledge! that a single beam darted by him over the world renders visible so many thousands of fields!
(53). That one ray extending from him all over the world makes visible many thousands of fields. It must be for some purpose that this great ray has been emitted.
(55). There must be a weighty reason why so many thousands of fields have been rendered visible, variegated, splendid, and shining with gems, while Buddhas of infinite sight are appearing.

Stanza 55 in Chinese renders:
示諸佛土，
眾寶嚴淨，
及見諸佛，
此非小緣
So 佛土 (Literally: Buddha-soil or Buddha-earth) is rendered literally English as "field" (the same characters are used in stanzas 49 and 53).
However, in Buddhist literature, these are the characters used for buddhakṣetra which is equivalent with Pure Land in East-Asian Buddhism. In the Mahayana sutras, there are many buddhakṣetras.Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteśvara and Manjushri would obtain pure lands after they attained buddhahood.
In the Lotus Sutra, Buddha's close followers such as Śāriputra, Mahākāśyapa, Subhuti, Maudgalyāyana and Buddha's son Rāhula would also have pure lands.
The literal meaning of "field" is not lost in the Lotus Sutra though. Manjushri answers a bit below the stanzas:
The aforesaid Lord Kandrasûryapradîpa, the Tathâgata, &c., when a young prince and not yet having left home (to embrace the ascetic life), had eight sons, viz. the young princes Sumati, Anantamati, Ratnamati, Viseshamati, Vimatisamudghâtin, Ghoshamati, and Dharmamati. These eight young princes, Agita, sons to the Lord Kandrasûryapradîpa, the Tathâgata, had an immense fortune. Each of them was in possession of four great continents, where they exercised the kingly sway. When they saw that the Lord had left his home to become an ascetic, and heard that he had attained supreme, perfect enlightenment, they forsook all of them the pleasures of royalty and followed the example of the Lord by resigning the world; all of them strove to reach superior enlightenment and became preachers of the law. While constantly leading a holy life, those young princes planted roots of goodness under many thousands of Buddhas.
So reading this as either:

allegorical, light shining on a field symbolizing the basic agricultural ingredients for seeds (of attainment) to grow
"Pure Land interpretation" of countless Buddha-realms, granted on attainment

is possible.


[unconfirmed, proceed with caution] since in his previous lives he already was a bodhisatta and so a noble disciple, becoming awakened was only a matter of time since according to the Dhamma after attainment of the sotapatti noble level (the 1st of the four) nibbana is to be attained within 7 lives at the most.

thus the Buddha was predestined to become one. even he himself couldn't change that. it's only that all his previous practice and wholesome kamma ripened in that particular life 2500 years ago

until the awakening he was not a buddha, but an unawakened bodhisatta

  before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta

Ariyapariyesana sutta (MN 26) by Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu


I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness, or the approach towards it, within Buddhism.

In Buddhism loneliness is viewed and treated exactly as any other undesirable mindstate.

  What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?

Any mental activity that involves "feeding" (sustaining) the description or image of the world as such that considers socializing to be a core valuable activity, would naturally cause the feeling of loneliness. This includes watching TV series and using social media. Also, as ChrisW said - comparing one's situation to others who are social, attachment to past pleasant social experiences. All this can be summarized as unwise application of attention which serves as feeding/sustenance of craving.

  What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?

The same old trick, wise application of attention. Moving one's perception into position where the problem of loneliness does not exist. The possibilities are infinite, from getting oneself involved with abstract sciences, to computer programming, creative performance and art, music -- to convincing oneself that loneliness is not only acceptable, but in fact natural for persons of high realization and beneficial for their well-being -- to direct Jhana experience of reviewing one's mental continuum and praising it for the absence of typical ups and downs that would have inevitably accompanied socializing.

  (2) Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?

Yes, exactly. See above.

  (3) what is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?

Mahayana view would be, that as long as your motivation is to help others, the use of social networks is appropriate, even if it causes you personal pain. In other words, Mahayana is totally fine with paying the price of suffering for  the higher goal of helping others reduce theirs. This thought in itself reduces personal suffering.

Of course it fragments awareness. But this is the spirit of times, and we want to be in tune with it if we are to be relevant.


A path to another university outside of Buddhism

This isn't easy to answer because I'm not sure what the question is.
It seems to be:

How can I explain Buddhism to Christians?
How can I reconcile Buddhism with Christianity?
How can I answer Christian's attacks on Buddhism?

You found already, and posted in your question, some topics like "Top 10 MISCONCEPTIONS about BUDDHISM."
They don't make this question easier to answer -- they're too long to review and comment on in detail unless you have a specific question.
There have been a lot of other introductory books and so on referenced on this site, many of them listed here.

To begin with I guess I'd recommend the answers to this topic: How to explain what Buddhism is?
I thought that this, for example, might be good advice:

I'd rather start with what practices I do and to what goal.
You can't help but say something about what you personally think, else you'll be parroting the party line of a particular institutionalize form of Buddhism or boring people with an encyclopedic listing of Buddhist schools.

Indeed it helps me a lot to be a better person
Christianity and Buddhism might have a lot in common -- for example I suppose that Buddhists would agree with this Christian list of "sins", which includes anger and so on. And apart from the commandments related to "God", about half of the 10 commandments match the Buddhist precepts.

I have an influential and high-level family of Christ that is eager to invite me into Christianity.
I think you implied in your earlier post that you want to ally with these people for a personal relationship and business partnership.
This was meant to be some advice about choosing a partner -- Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?. One of those answers actually starts with, "Leave aside unproven traditional criteria (including creed)".

Most of them go to temple, pray something in return, which I believe is inappropriate. What Buddha wants us to do is practice way of life and not actually praying Buddha as an idol.
I don't like to criticise other people.
It's true there are many schools and forms of Buddhism. The one you're describing might be Pure Land Buddhism is it?
It seems to me to be one the things which Christianity and Buddhism share or have in common, i.e. that

some people think it's about going to temple (rites and rituals)
some people think it's about praying (or meditation)
some people think it's about reading scripture
some people think its about daily practice
some people think it's about whether you "self-identify" (as "I am Christian" or "I am Buddhist")

Incidentally I thought that one of the more interesting answers on this site was this one.

"Buddha is a Satan" wording is really "hurts".
This sutta might be relevant, SN 7.2 -- if that wording nourishes anger and/or hurt, you don't need to share in that nourishment.
Some people, including Christians, are kind of "sectarian" even amongst themselves. Here was a fairly famous joke

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

When I was taught Christianity as a child they definitely taught me that Christianity was correct and that non-believers couldn't go to heaven, also that only that specific sect/Church of Christianity was correct.
It happens in Politics too sometimes: "Either you're a loyal member of the Party or you're not!"
There's a famous Buddhist sutta on the subject -- Sectarians (Ud 6.4) which describes "the blind men and the elephant", and people "wounding one another with weapons of the mouth" -- I think that implies some Buddhists might have done it too i.e. quarrelled like that.
I think that Māna (pride or conceit) is identified as one of the causes for such quarrelling:

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

It's hard to argue with -- some (not all) Christians might think, "I know better than you do", as well as, "I'm trying to persuade you for your own good, so that you too will experience the benefits I believe I experience for myself."

My sister went to Church for few months, back to house and screaming like a mad woman to request us to throw away all the Buddhism and Taoism statues.
That kind of controversy happens sometimes within Christianity too -- see Iconoclasm in the Byzantine and Reformation eras.
I think the premise is that people shouldn't be worshipping statues (of which the most famous prototype was the golden calf).
In the Reformation some people grew to dislike the statues found in Churches.
Some Christian churches are deliberately austere (not very decorated).
In churches which do have statues, I think they'll teach (if you ask them) that they don't worship the statues (e.g. statues of Jesus and Mary and the Saints), that the statues are "representations".
I suppose that some Buddhists may say the same, i.e. that a statue is meant as a reminder or a representation of the Buddha -- but there are rituals and veneration associated with statues, see for example:

How does one do an "eye opening" for a new statue?
What’s the Eye-opening ceremony

Even so I think that statues weren't a feature of early Buddhism -- see Pre-iconic phase (5th century – 1st century BCE). And, perhaps as with Christians, some Buddhists are and some Buddhists aren't keen on statues, see for example this answer:

Is it wrong to buy a Buddha statue in Thailand from a Buddhist point of view?
Yes it's wrong. Throw away your statues and burn your dharma books.
Why do you need statues for veneration? The Buddha discouraged making images in his likeness (Ananda Bodhi jataka), and has said that the Buddha cannot be likened to a statue (aprati samo). Venerate the dhamma within you, recollect your generosity, virtue, compassion, dhamma knowledge and wisdom. Practice and develop the satipattana. Let the statues made of corruptible wood and baked clay and trinkets be.

I wish to have a lot of social media sharing, discussion
This site is more intended for Question-and-Answer than for discussion.

You must learn to distinguish original Buddhism from modern variants
That's hard to do, arguably all modern Buddhism is a modern variant by definition.
Still some people say that the Pali suttas -- or perhaps the Chinese Agamas are the closest thing we have to "early Buddhist texts". If you want to explore those then this topic might be helpful:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

What i really wish is the those huge religion community to publish an apology online letter on the web site for against the Blasphemy Law and immediately remove the content (i.e. Buddha is Satan, Buddhist will go to hell , etc).
If that's what you really crave, then you might "suffer" if you don't get it! The Dhammapada warns against repretitive thinking such as, "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." etc.
My understanding of Buddhist doctrine is that you must control yourself, and cannot necessarily control what other people do and say.
One the one hand we're advised not to keep company with "fools", on the other to maintain a mind of good-will towards others.
That's another doctrine which is similar between Christianity and Buddhism, if not quite the same -- the Parable of the Saw (MN 21), compared with Turning the other cheek and non-violence in Christianity -- also the Punna Sutta (SN 35.88).


Eggman,

One starts to get free of addiction simply by keeping Silas: abstain, if there is no real penetration to right view (stress, cause, cessation, path).

It is pointless to try again and again a "short-cut". And there is no such as gaining world and Nibbana together. All undertakings to build equanimity around the cause without removing it, lead to even bigger unpleasant results.

Do the work to be done! and keep precepts.

It has it's cause, it's reason, why one falls in bad realms, becomes a hungry ghost.

If caught there, in the realm of hungry ghost, in internet: Use the practice of Mindfulness practice and meditation in Googlyana, starting with Silas.

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


How is the doctrine of no-self compatible with reincarnation?

When you light a candle with another candle, nothing transferred from first candle to the second candle.
When you copy a CD nothing physical transferred  from first CD to the second CD.
In cell division nothing physically transferred from first cell to the new cell.

The same way when one life end another life is crated.
Depend on the first the second is crated.


Forget death! Nothing goes from this moment to the next, even when you are alive. Hold one end of a spoon with your left hand and tap at the other end with your right.Your left hand will feel the vibrations as you tap. Now, do you think you felt it because the atoms at the right side of the spoon travelled to the left? Or is it because the particles at where you tapped vibrated 1st and caused the adjacent particles to vibrate as a result and that caused the next set of particles to vibrate and so on? Likewise, life/death/rebirth are just causes and effects. Nothing goes from preset to the future.
.


How buddhist meditation leads to liberation?

The essential difference is that in Buddhist meditation, at some point one uses one's mind to actively examine and investigate one's direct experience and to realize it's nature that way. This is the seventh factor of the Noble Eightfold path, Right Mindfulness, Samma-Sati. It is described in the Sattipatthana Sutta like this:

"There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, >alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains >focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & >mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
...
In this way he remains focused internally on the body etc... in & of itself, or >externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & >of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the >body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of >origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a >body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, >unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains >focused on the body in & of itself."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html )
The result of which is that the mediator begins to discern that reality is impermanent, unsatisfying, and non-self. As one realizes this more deeply, one is lead to liberation. This process is described in many places in the Suttas, most famously in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta like this:

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

(Source http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html )
Non-Buddhist systems of meditation often focus on just developing concentration without this process of analyzing direct experience, and so end up attaining other things, such as mastery of the Jhanas, rebirth into the Brahma worlds etc... There is nothing wrong with these other things, and they can also be a part of Buddhist practice, but they aren't the goal.


Each Buddha rediscovers the same path and the same truth all over again, on his own.
You can find this narrated in the Pali Canon for Vipassi Buddha (SN 12.4), Sikhi Buddha (SN 12.5), Vessabhu Buddha (SN 12.6), Kakusandha Buddha (SN 12.7), Konagamana Buddha (SN 12.8), Kassapa Buddha (SN 12.9) and of course, Gotama Buddha (SN 12.10).
Furthermore, the Buddha foretold the coming of the future Buddha, Metteyya Buddha or Maitreya Buddha in DN 26 - to do the same.


Samuel Beal (1825-89), in his translation of the Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King (A Life of Buddha), has defined the Vaipulya stage of Northern Buddhism as a pure form of Pantheism:

Northern Buddhism, again, may be divided into two, if not three, distinct periods of development, or epochs.
...
Thirdly, the 'indefinitely expanded' form, known as Vaipulya, which is founded on the idea of a universal nature, to which all living things belong, and which, by recovering itself in each case, secures for the subject complete restoration to the one nature from which all living things have wandered. This is evidently a form of pure Pantheism, and denotes the period when the distinctive belief of Buddhism merged into later Brahmanism, if indeed it did not originate it.
Source: The Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King (A Life of Buddha)

The following Sutras are commonly defined as Vaipalya Sutras:

The nine Dharma Paryaya texts are otherwise named vaipulya sūtra, because vaipulya literary means 'extensive'. Nine Dharma Paryāyas are generally enumerated as follows:
Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra
Saddharma-puṇdarīka-sūtra
Lalitavistara-sūtra
Laṇkāvatāra-sūtra / Saddharma-Laṇkāvatāra-sūtra
Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-sūtra
Kāraṇḍyavyūha-sūtra / Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra
Tathāgataguhyka-sūtra / Tathāgataguṇa-jñāna-sūtra
Samādhirāja-sūtra
Daśabhūmīśvara-sūtra.
Source

According to the Dictionary Of Chinese Buddhist Terms:

Vaipulya is extension, spaciousness, widespread, and this is the idea expressed both in 廣 broad, widespread, as opposed to narrow, restricted, and in 等 levelled up, equal everywhere, universal. These terms suggest the broadening of the basis of Buddhism, as is found in Mahāyāna. The Vaipulya works are styled sutras, for the broad doctrine of universalism, very different from the traditional account of his discourses, is put into the mouth of the Buddha in wider, or universal aspect.


Did some googling.
The Buddha Way
by Harper San Francisco
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-buddha-waya-folding-screen-book_harper-san-francisco/2596039/item/13174882/#isbn=0062511394&idiq=13174882
Is this it?


What is meant by the 8 stages of insight?

This is 7 purification and 16 stages of insight. See:

The Progress of Insight
Transcendental Dependent Arising
Relay Chariots
7 Stages of Purification & The Insight Knowledges
A Map of the Journey (Very readable book)
The Development of Insight
The Sixteen Stages of Insight

NB: Don't get too engrossed in the stages. Many of the naturally manifest them self. You cannot force the development or crave for it to come. Either way you are regressing.


Are there any living enlightened people?

As Andrei says in the comments talking about achievements are taboo so it's difficult to know. However Daniel Ingram (Theravada practitioner) is a taboo buster about this and openly claims in his book Mastering the Core teachings that he is an ahrat. So basically that he is enlightened.

That might seem like massive hubris and just in bad taste but if you listen to any talks by him he is massively engaging on the subject and convincing. I recommend listening to an interview with him on the Buddhist Geeks podcast (numbers 6, 9 and 11). In that talk he claims that there are a significant number of people either enlightened or well on the way. He names some American monasteries and particularly the Insight Mediation Centre as a place that you might bump into these people. He claims that although no-one is going to admit it publicly, if you a a serious practitioner and physically go there with particular issues or experiences of your own then those people will be more forthcoming on their own experiences. This accords with my own limited experience. In a well established relationship with a teacher or more experience practitioner then people will be a lot more forthcoming.

As a further interesting point, Daniel Ingram does say that our models of enlightenment are a mess (he's a provocative kind of person). So when we are casting around and trying to spot who is further down that path then we might just be looking for the wrong kind of things. He particularly says that being enlightened and being a very saintly kind of person wouldn't necessarily be the same thing.

As a note - I don't think Daniel Ingram still claims he is an arhat (not sure). He has a new edition of his book coming out so it will be interesting to see where he is at. Also I'm not necessarily saying Daniel Ingram is right, but just that he has some very interesting views in this area and I frankly like writing about them.


Yes some texts of the pali canon have parallels in what people call the (chinese) agamas.
The links for the agamas is here:

Where can I find the Chinese Canon Agama in English translation?

Some people compare the agamas and the nikayas:

The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism --
A comparative study based on the Sutranga
portion of the Pali Sarpyutta-Nikaya
and the Chinese Sarpyuktagama
by Choong Mun-keat (Wei-keat)

... for instance, chapter 7 ...

... with the most famous one about breath mediation here:

Translations from the Taishō Tripiṭaka

bikkhu analayo is the most famous bikkhu for this kind of comparision:

Prof. Dr. Bhikkhu Analayo

Many of the Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras (chinese or tibetan), however, have no parallel in the pali suttas (i.e. they're unique to Mahayana or Vajrayana):

Chart Comparing Pali, Chinese and Tibetan Canons


Can straight samatha ever lead to enlightenment?

If you are asking about whether Samatha meditation alone can lead to enlightenment the answer is no.

Why is that?

In Vipassana meditation you have ultimate reality as your object of meditation. By having reality as your object you achieve insight into how reality functions i.e. the 3 signs of existence; anicca, dukkha, anatta. When penetrating into reality one can attain enlightenment through realizising one of these signs.

When one is doing Samatha meditation alone one can only gain tranquility i.e. a strong concentration and the jhanas. One cannot any achieve insights into reality and therefore not become enlightened. That is because in samatha meditation one does not have ultimate reality as an object. Instead one has a concept as an object e.g. one of the 10 kasinas. One is trying to keep that object static by keeping attention on the object through the means of applied and sustained thought.

You can think about it in another way. Lets say you had a big stone in front you and you want to carve out a figure from that stone. To do that you need an instrument, a tool. Concentration is your tool and the stone is reality.

In order for you to be able to carve into the stone you need the tool to be sharp. In other words you need to sharpen your tool. That is where samatha meditation is used. You use samatha meditation to train and sharpen your concentration so that you can use concentration as a tool to carve/penetrate into reality and then gain insights into how reality functions.

So back to the stone. If you only sharpen your tool will that ever lead you to enlightenment?

No its not possible. Samatha meditation is like that sharpening. By doing samatha meditation you are only making your tool sharper, better and more precise but you are never actually applying that tool to the stone. You are never actually carving the stone.

That is why samatha meditation alone cannot lead you to enlightenment.

Lanka


It leads to non-regret,
one who has non-regret gets serene
one who gets serene gets concentrated

So it acts as foundation for concentration, meditative methods use and further develope that same concentration faculty which in turn supports developement of discernment and wisdom.

Sutta references:
 AN 10.2 & AN 11.2


Is it harmful to the Buddha when we request he or she to continue teaching instead of entering parinirvana?

As I pointed out in my answer to "are earthworms our mothers?"  these kind of questions often assume incorrect frame of reference. The reason we request Buddha (or our local teacher as Buddha's substitute) to continue teaching instead of entering parinirvana, is not because it can literally make Buddha (or teacher) change their mind and stay. The idea is to create a mental context in which A) the teacher feels motivated to continue teaching because he sees the teaching is in demand, B) the students stay aware of the fact that existence of the teaching in this world depends solely on Buddha and then generations of teachers passing it to one another, and now to the students, and C) the student clearly realizes that the teacher could very well leave this place but is instead making effort to stay and teach solely out of compassion for the students. When this context is established the teaching can happen effectively, because both the sides will engage actively and with no resistance.

Granted these are entry-level practices, but they are very important to establish as foundation. Otherwise what happens if you skip straight to advanced teaching, the student may get as arrogant as to metaphorically grab the teacher by the hair and swing around. Needless to say, it hurts the student first and foremost.


Please see the English translation of the Anapanasati Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 118 or MN 118) on the Buddhist mindfulness of breathing technique. The transliterated Pali version can be found here.

Please see the English translation of the Satipatthana Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 10 or MN 10) on the four foundations of mindfulness technique. The transliterated Pali version can be found here.

These two texts come from the Sutta Pitaka, the volume of the Pali Canon that contains the Buddha's discourses (suttas). According to tradition, these discourses were delivered by the Buddha, during the Buddha's lifetime (c. 563/480 – c. 483/400 BCE).

These texts, translated to English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, are originally in the Pali language, which is a partially Sanskritized variant of Prakrit. The Buddha spoke either Magadhi Prakrit or another dialect of Prakrit. Prakrit is closely related to Sanskrit.

If you want to read a modern guide and explanation on the techniques mentioned in MN 118 and MN 10, please see Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's book "How to Meditate". If you're actually interested to learn Buddhist meditation, this is a great place to start.

Another newer text that you may read is the Visuddhimagga or Path of Purification, a text written in the 5th century CE in Sri Lanka by the monk Buddhaghosa. You can find a PDF version here.


Buddha teaches the extinguishing of suffering, what if an individual is okay with suffering?

In Buddhism, the only reason why someone embraces suffering / unsatisfactoriness and chooses to co-exist with suffering / unsatisfactoriness, is due to clinging or attachment to sensual pleasures and existence (the idea to become something or somebody).
From SN 6.1:

“This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to
understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of reason, subtle,
comprehensible to the astute. But people like attachment, they love it
and enjoy it. It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific
conditionality, dependent origination. It’s also hard for them to see
this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of
all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
extinguishment. And if I were to teach this principle, others might
not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.”

This is further elaborated in MN 75:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
sensuality.

Also from the Dhammapada:

Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things
passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the
best.

This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.

Walking upon this path you will make an end of suffering. Having discovered how to pull out the thorn of lust, I make known the path.

You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds of
Mara.

And also:

Whoever is overcome by this wretched and sticky craving, his sorrows grow like grass after the rains.

But whoever overcomes this wretched craving, so difficult to overcome, from him sorrows fall away like water from a lotus leaf.


What is special about physical contact in the context of erotic/sexual behaviour?

..."I never understand why physical contact is automatically associated with erotic practices"... We are not in control of how sensual desires arise. The only thing we can do to control erotic desire is to cut out what has been known to make the erotic desire arise and that means abstaining from physical contact. Doesn't it help meditation practice when we don't do things that could possibly lead to defilement and distraction? Erotic desire entangles  and greatly distracts us from the task of seeing things as they are. Metta :)


"Wholeheartedness" is the term we use in my Rinzai lineage.  In Japanese, you can probably get away with the term "kanshin" which loosely translates to "the mind with no remainder".  Think of it as a mind that is so engaged, there's nothing left over that could be doing something else.  Like if you're hoeing beans, you are hoeing beans and not thinking about your taxes or whether Gincarlo Stanton will finally play a full season for the Yankees.
This is the place where not even a needle can enter.  It is a practice that is so close that no air can escape.


What is admiration? How to stop craving it?

You need to try and focus on yourself rather than her. Whatever qualities she admired in you, you need to show yourself these qualities. Let's say she admired your smile, every time you look in a mirror, tell yourself "I have a beautiful smile and this is all mine".

You need to accept yourself first and everyone else will take a back seat. It won't be easy and instant but it's a start. Tell yourself that you are in love with a version of her that you created up in your mind. The idea of her and "her" are two different people.

Also, writing down your thoughts help. Another technique is to realize the importance of people who love you like family and friends who are around. You need to understand that these are the ones who truly care about you and you need to get your life back on track for them. Everyday try and find something in people close to you that attracts you to them. This will help lower her importance in life.

Hope this helps!


Critique on Kalama Sutta: Is Buddhism bad for Buddhism?

Since the Kalamas were confused in what they should or not believe, The Buddha instructed that they should be pragmatic and adopt only views and conduct which would lead to their well-being and peace of mind insted of keep bothering themselves with unverifiable competing doctrines which would lead to nowhere but to stressful mind states.

This is unrelated to the examples you give regarding the traditional customs of the monks and the Sangha because the customs are not harmful per se, they may be actually a source of joy, which serves to propel the practice. It all comes to how you relate to it, as long as there is Right View, there is no harm.

The monks would be sabotaging themselves if they start raise against traditional customs just because their wrong personal view (disregarding the issue of dukkha) say so
(which is conceit, ingratitude and cling to self-view). The practice delineated by the Buddha intend to end all stress building up the proper conditions, and to do so, is necessary to settle the attention to the proper frame of reference. Any other preoccupation is merely the mind being dragged by its passion over sensory phenomena.

  This world is in bondage to attachments, clingings [sustenances], &
  biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to
  these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases,  or
  obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty or
  doubt that mere stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing
  away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is  independent of
  others. It’s to this extent, Kaccāna, that there is right view.

  SN 12:15

For complementary explanantion of why clinging to personal views are nothing more than fuel to the fetters, See: AN 10:93 and MN 63

Regarding the rebirth doctrine as it is decribed, it's  a attempt to explain a insight of  the Buddha himself. So it's suppose, for those who follows the Buddha's footsteps, to have such  experience (whatever it may be) as well at some point.
No one is demanding you to believe in it. However, aside of the feeling of samvega (disenchantment due the briefness nature of the sensory phenomena), having conviction in rebirth, will turn the
practioner much more eager to go forth.


Sutta that says to do mindfulness in a slow manner

There is no sutta or commentary which taught to meditate slowly. The action speed depends on the practitioner skill level, some uneducated practitioner (may be) need to action slow.

But there are many sutta taught to meditate in order. And There are some commentary which have the example of the practitioner who always repeatedly his action when he forget to meditate mindfulness.

However, when we begin to do some very hard new thing  carefully, mindfully. we will be automatic slow down ourselves. Because if we do it over fast we will cross the step, mistake the practice's sequences.


What is Indra's Net, according to Mahayana Buddhism?

There are two sets of Mahayana sutras:

The seventeen Perfection of Wisdom sutras (Prajnaparamita Sutras), and
The other sutras, of the Wheel of Perfect Differentiation.

The first set does not present Indra’s net while the second does. Tibetan traditions posit the first set as being “of definite meaning” and therefore study it and overlook the second. They do not study the sutras of the Wheel of Differentiation except through commentaries refuting their presentations.

On the other hand, most Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese traditions such as the Huayan school, Chan, Tientai, etc. posit the second set of sutras as being “of definite meaning” and therefore study it and overlook the Perfection of Wisdom sutras.

Therefore, if you want to know more about Indra’s net, you have to look on the side of Zen, etc. because they are more likely to comment sutras that speak of Indra’s net. Among the various sutras of the Wheel of Perfect Differentiation, the most well known are:

The Lankavatara Sutra (remember that Chan masters were first called "Lankavatara masters" before the "Chan" designation came into being),
The Avatamsaka Sutra (Garland of Flowers), that became popular after the Lankavatara was found too complicated for lay people
The Lotus sutra,
The Tathagatagarbha Sutra, and
The Vimalakirti Sutra.

Most of them mention Indra (just as the Prajnaparamita Sutras do) but do not mention Indra’s net. For instance, the Vimalakirti Sutra merely mentions Indra. Even the translator's footnotes do not say more than:

  Kausika, Sakra, and Indra all refer to the same god, who, in Buddhist cosmogony is regarded as the king of gods in the desire-realm.

This helps you understand that it is not that common a notion.

Of these scriptures, only the Avatamsaka Sutra (a 1’500 pages sutra) does. It says:

  Far away, in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out indefinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel at the net’s every node, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude. A wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one the these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewels is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that the process of reflection is infinite.

Thích Nhất Hạnh is a Vietnamese Zen master in the lineage of Huineng. The Caodong Chan school in China and the Soto Zen school in Japan also proceed from Huineng. In Understanding Our Mind (Chapter 13, Indra’s Net), Thích Nhất Hạnh refers to the Avatamsaka Sutra:

  Indra's net is a vast, cosmic lattice that contains precious jewels wherever the threads cross. There are millions of ewels strung together to make the net, and each jewel has many facets. When you look at any facet of any jewels, you can see all the other jewels reflected in it. In the world of the Avatamsaka, in Indra's net, the one is present in the all, and the all in the one. This wonderful image was used in Buddhism to illustrate the principle of interdepedence and interpenetration.

And he explains the meaning:

  In our ordinary world, we see a teapot as a single, independent object. But if we look deeply enough into the teapot, we will see that it contains many phenomena – earth, water, fire, air, space, and time – and we will realize that in fact the entire universe come together to make this teapot.

From this Vietnamese Zen perspective, this is analyzing dependent-origination.


The way I was trained, it's not like you'll have fewer thoughts - because the nature of mind is to think, it's more like, your mental balance will shift from thoughts to "nothing" that "does not change" as thoughts come and go. So instead of taking the thoughts too seriously and getting carried far away, as your practice develops you should be letting go of them a lot more easily, until they are just like children with their toys. The children can get excited or upset and crying over their toys, but you're like: "whatever, in a minute they will forget about it, not a big deal".

What's more important is not thoughts (although over time they will change too, but that's just a side-effect) - it is integration in the space beneath the thoughts. It's the feeling of no inner conflict, no fighting with oneself, not blaming - that's what should improve over time.

IMO, paying attention to breath and especially on the diaphragm/abdomen area helps see that "space beneath the thoughts" - which is where trouble is most of the time. Coming back from a movie played by the thought is important because what you're working on is that space, not the thoughts. And then at some point things should get peaceful enough that you don't need to worry about that space either. Thoughts come and go, the emotional foundation has some signless syrup slowly boiling, and everything is just the way it should.

Remember, what you are after is not any particular state, but rather, the whatever-happens-is-fine attitude of peace and integration, so having no thoughts is not the point, the point is having no worries - including worries about worries.

Of course, it's not like on your way to this attitude of all-acceptance you don't work at all. There is a lot of hard work in paying attention, letting go, and integrating - but it is a type of "hard" opposite to what we call "hard" when we torture ourselves. It's like slowly letting oneself fall into a bottomless abyss, which involves constant fight with one's fear and the instinctual grabbing on stuff, and that's where all struggle is.

And then as you go through this, if you're paying any attention, you will inevitably start learning about "the way things work" - and then things like Four Noble Truths etc. suddenly start making total sense, referring directly to your first-hand experience.

That's my experience anyway, your mileage may varyTM.


one need not take cognisance of anyone else's opinions or group norms, but one can simply decide for oneself what is important and meaningful

That's not what I read into it.

A question you should consider, one of the yardsticks by which to measure or test a belief ('doctrine', 'quality', or 'behaviour') is whether it is "praised by the wise" and "blameless".

It also states several bits of Buddhist doctrine as self-evident, for example ...

  When greed arises in a person ... it arises for harm not for welfare"

... and/or axiomatic, for example ...

  "And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering"

I think that if what you "simply decide for yourself" contradicts these (Buddhist) axioms then I don't see such a decision as being supported by the sutta.

Instead I think it's saying that if you practice the (Buddha's) doctrine then you will experience (i.e. "know for yourself") the result (and that the result will be a better result).

I find it more prescriptive than permissive, for example ...

  One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now

... is prescribing a "mind thus free from hostility".

  Is The Kālāma Sutta Really Libertarian?

I found this page on fakebuddhaquotes which gives what the author describes as a "libertarian" interpretation of the sutta ...

  Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

... and which it says is ...

  ... is a bad translation of the Kalama Sutta — so bad, in fact, that it contradicts the message of the sutta, which says that reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the truth.

His view of the sutta is,

  The Buddha’s reply is very full, but it’s clear he says that “reason” (logical conjecture, inference, analogies, agreement through pondering views) and “common sense” (probability) are not sufficient bases for determining what the truth is. It’s not that these things should be discarded, but ultimately it’s experience and the opinion of the wise that is our guide.

Further to that ...

  Now you don’t have to take everything they say as being the absolute truth. You can use your reason, your common sense, and your experience as a guide. Not all of “the wise” will agree, for example, so you’re still going to have to figure things out for yourself ultimately.

Still he claims that the criterion that "the opinion of the wise should be a guide" is often overlooked, and he describes this (overlooking this criterion) as a "libertarian" position.

IOW (to answer your question) I think the author believes that the sutta isn't really "libertarian" in that sense.

  a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective

Well that might have a parallel in Buddhism, for example The Taste of Freedom,

  As though in response to mankind's call for wider frontiers of freedom, the Buddha offers to the world His Teaching, the Dhamma, as a pathway to liberation as applicable today as it was when first proclaimed twenty-five centuries ago.

  "Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline (dhammavinaya) there is but one taste — the taste of freedom": with these words the Buddha vouches for the emancipating quality of His doctrine.

Or for example the word ananta (endless, limitless, infinite) was mentioned in another topic that people were discussing recently.

However that's not the same interpretation of "liberty" as various modern versions of 'libertarian' some of which say (if I'm not misrepresenting them) for example that people are well-advised to arm themselves in order to be able to defend their own property with lethal violence.

If you're looking for a parallel outside Buddhism, I know hardly nothing about schools of politics or philosophy but I'd guess that Buddhism might be closer to stoicism than libertarianism; in that for example something like this sounds Buddhist to me,

  The Stoics taught that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection", would not suffer such emotions.

In terms of "freedom", it doesn't mean (doesn't teach) freedom to have destructive emotions (and/or behaviours): what it's teaching is freedom from destructive emotions.

  Why do people read the negative criteria as referring to test beliefs?

You're saying it's about behaviour not belief, i.e. it's about "making decisions about how to behave".

I see that as a "belief" for these reasons:

In the translation I'm  using the Kalamas start with,

  They expound & glorify their own doctrines etc.

The question then is about "doctrine" which I equate with "belief" (even when the subject of the belief is "how to behave").
The Buddha asks them,

  What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises etc.

I'm equating that question "what do you think" with a question about belief, i.e. "what do you believe?"
The subject of the Buddha's questions is the three unwholesome roots, and I think he's saying "Buddhist doctrine is that these are unwholesome" and is asking various questions about this doctrine:

Do you believe this doctrine? Given that you do ...
Do the wise agree with this doctrine? And ...
If you practice this doctrine does it lead to welfare?

So again it's talking about doctrine, for example the belief that greed is an unwholesome root.
I equate 'belief' with 'view'; Wikipedia's description of right view suggests that it,

  ... acts as the reasoning with which someone starts practicing the path. Right view gives direction and efficacy to the other seven path factors.

So behaviour is important, but perhaps action proceeds from view, i.e. you behave a certain way because you have a view (or belief) about behaviour and about how to train your behaviour.


What is the Buddhist text quoted by the Hindu philosopher Yogaraja?

I can find a "reverse" message in Udana 5.1 to "When one looks upon himself as the Self, he regards himself as a unique being due to the distinction between the Self and another being [i.e. the not-self]; this causes bondage and hostility [between the Self and the not-self]. All evils ensue from the assumption of such bondage.":

  When the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"

  Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:

  Searching all directions with your awareness, you find no one dearer
  than yourself. In the same way, others are thickly dear to
  themselves. So you shouldn't hurt others if you love yourself.


What was the time gap between the previous Buddha and Gautama Buddha?

It is difficult to give the exact time gap between the previous Buddha and Gautama Buddha. Both Buddhas came to pass in this great aeon.  This is a Special Kalpa – a Maha-Bhadra-Kalpa - largest time unit in Buddhism - unlike the previous ones, where five Buddhas in all will come to pass. Buddha says it's not suitable to count the exact length of the maha-kalpa in number of years. In the Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara. In Samyutta ii, Chapter XV, the Buddha used the parables of the hill and mustard-seed for comparison:

Suppose there was a solid mass, of rock or hill, one yojana (eight miles) wide, one yojana across and one yojana high and every hundred years, a man was to stroke it once with a piece of silk. That mass of rock would be worn away and ended sooner than would an aeon.
Suppose there was a city of iron walls, one yojana in length, one yojana (eight miles)  in width, one yojana high and filled with mustard-seeds to the brim. There-from a man was to take out every hundred years a mustard-seed. That great pile of mustard-seed would be emptied and ended sooner than would an aeon.

In the Digha Nikaya in Mahāpadāna sutta, the Discourse of the biography of the Buddha it is said that:

"In the time of the Lord Buddha Vipassi the life-span was eighty-thousand years; in the time of the Lord Buddha Sikhi seventy thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Vessabhu sixty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Kakusandha forty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Konagamana thirty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Kassapa it was twenty thousand. In my time the lifespan is short, limited, and quick to pass: it is seldom that anybody lives to be one hundred.”
At the time of the next Buddha, the average lifespan of a human is going to be eighty thousand years. (In the present day it is around 60 -80 years).


Will I be considered a real Buddhist if I take refuge alone?

Yes you can take refuge in the triple gem (the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha) alone.

Here are 2 links for you.

The first link describes how you take refuge in the triple gem.

The second link describes how to take the five precepts. They are normally taken after taking refuge in the triple gem.

May you be well and happy and free from mental and physical suffering.

Lanka


You can think of this in terms of addiction.

For the most common example, let's take addiction to alcohol. The more you desire alcohol and the more you let your desire drive your action, the more you sustain your addiction, which makes you helpless and creates all kinds of trouble for you and others.

Bodhicitta is like desire to stop drinking. You desire to be free from the addiction. Which means you desire to be your own master. You develop the will power to abstain from drinking. You learn to resist the temptation. Moreover, you learn to generate the same type of relaxation and joy that you used to get from alcohol - through other, more healthy means.

The same idea is at play in Buddhism - except in Buddhism the context is much broader, we are not talking about any specific addiction - we are willing to be free from them all, any dependency on anything whatsoever. This is why it's called Liberation, being not bound, not dependent, not addicted, not controlled, free.

The state of mind when you are determined, intent on, convinced, motivated - to be free - which means being actively determined to make every action in context of the four right efforts - is called relative bodhicitta, while the state of having attained Liberation, or rather, mastered it, which basically means having completely mastered the four right efforts - is called absolute bodhicitta.

Now, somewhat counterintuitively, attaining liberation is not always done through passive means like letting go and acceptance. It also requires mastery of will power - particularly mastery over ones thoughts, emotions, mood, motivation, and energy. Not just mastery in the sense of being able to stop them and suppress them or accept - but in the sense of being your own power generator, your own mood maker, your own sustenance. It's the four right efforts, not the two right efforts - this is a very important point!

So these are two very different desires - one is the desire of weakness and addiction, to get your satisfaction from the outside - the other is the desire to be strong and not dependent.


Prohibitions against eating certain animals?

Page 308 of The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

  The Mahavagga (Mv.VI.23.9-15) forbids ten kinds of flesh: that of human
  beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas.

  To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable
  types, a dukkata. Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too
  noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on
  grounds that they were repulsive (“People criticized and complained and spread
  it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome,
  disgusting’”) or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion’s flesh, went into the
  jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them).

  The Commentary adds three comments here: (a) These prohibitions cover
  not only the meat of these animals but also their blood, bones, skin, and hide
  (the layer of tissue just under the skin—see AN 4.113). (b) The prohibition
  against dog flesh does not include wild dogs, such as wolves and foxes, (but
  many teachers—including the Thai translator of the Commentary—question this
  point). The flesh of a half-dog half-wolf mixture, however, would be forbidden.
  (c) The prohibition against snake flesh covers the flesh of all long, footless beings.
  Thus eels would not be allowed.


Abhidhamma Pitaka and its relationship with theoretical physics

Abhidhamma mainly deals with citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbāna.

Rupa deal with physical properties but concentrates mainly or the making of the physical body.

Citta and cetasika deals with mental and psychological factors.

Nibbana is a state one can experience which is not governed by the laws citta, cetasika, rupa, which results in liberation when one realise it.

The physics in Rupa is different from the current knowledge in physics so this baggage might be an impediment to learn Abhidhamma if you try to draw too much parallel.

Also, Abhidhammarmic studies are generally motivated to realise Nibbana so the teachings are geared toward this goal and a general understanding of how things work for mundane affairs.


Is (and why is) physical health important, as well as mind?

The Bhikkhuni sutta recommends food, for example, as follows:

  This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

I suppose that taking medicine is for a similar purpose -- i.e. it's to destroy old feelings (of pain), and not to create new feelings (from intoxication or sensual indulgence).

The vinaya for example permits medicines to monks if they're sick, including medicines which contain alcohol, if the alcohol is in more-or-less undetectable quantities (alcohol is useful when creating certain medicines because it's an effective solvent e.g. of alkaloids).

See also the answers to the topic Experiencing physical pain.

You might also want to read:

What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying

  Management of terminal pain and sedation

  Most Buddhists believe that the mind must be as alert as possible at the time of death.

  Taking into consideration overall well-being (including the mental state of the patient), nurses must balance the level of pain relief needed against the need for alertness in the dying Buddhist.
  Proper pain management can be achieved with minimal disruption of alertness by the use of the WHO analgesic ladder.
  The choice of non-opioid analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) and weak opioids should be preferred over strong opioids and neurolytic block therapy whenever possible, with the aim of reducing adverse side effects (i.e. sedation and cognitive impairment), thus maintaining alertness of the individual so that effective spiritual practices may continue. However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops, cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that may require the use of strong opioids for effective relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible that would support meditative spiritual practices.

The above is a small quote/extract, I recommend reading the whole article.

In other words medical providers are advised to (more or less as usual) adjust the amount and type of medicine, according to the amount of pain, and according to the patient's ability to tolerate it. The difference is that Buddhist patients tend to prefer to avoid mind-altering drugs for as long as feasible.
A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering

Why is the body important when one is enlightened or mindful?

Part of Buddhist doctrine is a Middle Way, e.g. MN 36 explains something like this:

  "I thought: 'Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'

  "I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, but that pleasure is not easy to achieve with a body so extremely emaciated. Suppose I were to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' So I took some solid food: some rice & porridge. Now five monks had been attending on me, thinking, 'If Gotama, our contemplative, achieves some higher state, he will tell us.' But when they saw me taking some solid food — some rice & porridge — they were disgusted and left me, thinking, 'Gotama the contemplative is living luxuriously. He has abandoned his exertion and is backsliding into abundance.


How would Buddhists respond to someone harming the temple?

This is highly subjective, but practically speaking, If you go to a Buddhist country and try to engage in vandalism, the chances are that the people nearby will beat the living daylights out of you until a monk interferes and calms them down. After that you will be arrested by the police.

It would be a big mistake to think that the average lay Buddhist is meek or timid.


Was Gautama Buddha a believer of the religious beliefs prevalent in his time and in his cultural context?

There's no belief for a Buddha. A Buddha is omniscient. He knows what is right and what is wrong by direct knowledge.

Yes, the Buddha did uphold certain religious practices of the time which are congenial to the path.

ex: The five precepts, 13 Dutangas, attainment of the Janas

He also rejected many false views which the contemporary religions were based on. They are grouped into 62 in Brahmajāla sutta.


Tradition and purpose of prostration practice

Some texts attribute the original authorization of prostration to the Buddha himself, although they are clear to differentiate between the Hindu Bhakti and guru worship.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel206.html

  However, He did lay down three forms of reverence for bhikkhus;
  wearing the robe with the right shoulder bared, kneeling down, and
  holding the palms of the hands together in the gesture of reverence.
  Prostration at the feet of the Buddha is also mentioned many times in
  the Suttas. Lay people are free to show their reverence in any
  suitable way and people of those times were recorded in the Suttas as
  expressing their reverence variously:

  So the Kalamas of Kesaputta approached the Lord. Having approached
  him, some prostrated towards the Lord and sat down at one side; some
  greeted the Lord politely, and having conversed in a friendly and
  courteous way, sat down to one side; some raising their hands in
  añjali to the Lord sat down to one side, some called out their names
  and those of their clans and sat down to one side; while others saying
  nothing sat down to one side.

  — Kalama Sutta, Anguttara-nikaya iii 65 (PTS edition). See A Criterion
  of True Religion, Mahamakut Press, Bangkok, and The Kalama Sutta,
  Wheel No. 8, BPS, Kandy, Sri Lanka.

And additional evidence of the Buddha accepting prostrations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostration_(Buddhism)

  In the Pali canon, laypersons prostrating before the then-living
  Buddha is mentioned in several suttas.[3] In Theravada Buddhism, as
  part of daily practice, one typically prostrates before and after
  chanting and meditation. On these occasions, one does typically
  prostrates three times: once to the Buddha, once to the Dhamma, and
  once to the Sangha. More generally, one can also prostrate before "any
  sacred object of veneration."[4]

But is there evidence of prostrations by religions previous to Buddhism?
http://www.chayas.com/qidah.htm

  Bowing, kneeling, yoshev la'areS, qidah & prostration [to the one G-D]
  originated in authentic Torah Teachings (the Torah of Moses). It
  certainly preceded Islam and Christianity. It is still practiced (to
  some extent) today and is/was retained by a minority of Jews, even
  during the Middle Ages. And while portions of this original practice
  may (or may not have) been copied by other religions, anyone familiar
  with ancient practice knows we still preserve the original method of
  prostration. In my opinion, a popular return to proper Jewish
  prostration or qidah, (which brings about focused, meaningful prayer)
  will result in a greater level of shifa for the Jewish people (and the
  world). This translates into a greater level of Divine protection
  (based on concepts in 'The Guide' / Moreh Nevukhim).

So there may be evidence of your particular Buddhist sect deriving the tradition, but if your question is where was prostration first introduced there is evidence that others preceded Tibetan traditions.