How do we know numbers of past lives and rebirths? I can understand how the Buddha and various arhats and the like can surmise the existence of past lives and rebirth. What I dont see is how they come up with actual numbers of times they have been reborn and the total number of times anyone is and how long the universe has been contracting and expanding and things like that? At some point isn't that delving into the unknowable?

Apparently in Buddhist cosmology, the universe of worlds begins and ends cyclically. That's called an aeon or eon or kalpa. The Visuddhimagga calls this a Maha Kalpa (Great Aeon).

This wikipedia page (without sufficient citations) gives some statistics on the duration of a Maha Kalpa:

  Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately
  16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard
  seed into the cube. According to the Buddha, the huge cube will be
  filled even before the kalpa ends.

  Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa,
  approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfing Mount Everest). You take a
  small piece of silk and wipe the mountain once every 100 years.
  According to the Buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even
  before the kalpa ends.

I found that a tiny mustard seed could have a diameter of around 1mm. If I make it easier by assuming that it is a cube with the sides of 1 x 1 x 1mm, then it has 1 cubic mm of volume.

Meanwhile, a huge empty cube of 16 miles on each side has 17 billion cubic mm of volume. So, if this huge empty cube is filled up at 1 cubic mm per 100 years, then how many years does it take to fill up 17 billion cubic mm of volume?

In my calculation, it would be 1.7 trillion years. So, the description is that this huge empty cube will be filled up before the aeon ends. Currently, physicists estimate that the age of our current universe is 13.82 billion years.

The same page also states:

  If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the
  Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even
  that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas.

I'm not sure how many sand particles there are at the depth of the Ganges river from the beginning to the end of it, but I guess there must be at least trillions of particles based on this article. So, according to this description, we have had at least trillions of aeons in the past, with each lasting over 1.7 trillion years each.

In the Assu Sutta, it is taught that the amount of tears that we have shed in past lives exceed the volume of the four great oceans.

According to this article, the average amount of tears shed by a human being in a lifetime is 64 litres. And according to this article, the ocean has 321,003,271 cubic miles of water which is 1.34x10^21 litres. So, for one person to cry that much through all his past lives, he needs to have lived for 1.34x10^21/64 lifetimes, which is still in the order of 10^19, which is more than a quintillion lifetimes.

Based on these descriptions, I would say that the existence of the universe (with all its worlds) where sentient beings live, and the amount of past lives that we have had, is effectively infinite. The past lives recalled by the Buddha are only the last n lives, rather than ALL of it.

The Buddhas recollect past abodes or adherences (nivasa) rather than past lives (jiva). This means they recollect each time in the past the mind ignorantly clung to one or more aggregates as 'self'. Refer to SN 22.79, which literally explains this.

Therefore, if it is counted each time the mind clung to something as "I", "me" & "mine", this is counting "pubbe nivasa" (past abodes; not "past lives", which is a mistranslation).


Who am I- according to Buddhism What does Buddha say about the question,"Who am I"? Our body and mind perishes with time. If so then who actually attains the Truth?

Buddhism says there is no core which is unchanging and nor an entity with absolute control over anything we call me or mine. Also, the practice is somewhat geared towards eliminating the notion of a permanent controlling self-identity view as this gives you a yard stick to measure yourself against others, which causes misery. So in conventional wisdom, it is you who attains the truth, although the notion of self will eventually be abandoned.

None of the above posts answer the original question!  Perhaps the question cannot be answered. Through meditation emptiness may be experienced but not explained. There was a time when scientists believed the vacuum of space was empty.  Now we know that it is far from empty.  Full of "Dark energy", " Dark matter", photons of light gravity, ect. The emptiness experienced during meditation isn't empty either.  It is full of is ness, and am ness.  Void of all else.


Buddhism after death From what I understand the aggregates aren't self but now when a person dies and the material aggregates of his body dissolve then what remains who gets reincarnated ?.If there is no soul then what carries the information of this person to go to another life for example what defines that this is the person and not someone else do we have a serial number :) ?.

When the new material aggregates of the new body are born then they are different from the ones of the person who died .What defines that THIS person is in THAT body?.

According to SN 12.17, Eternalist have the view ‘The one who acts is the one who experiences’ and annihilationist have the view ‘The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences.

  "'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]' amounts to the eternalist statement, 'Existing from the very beginning, stress is self-made.' 'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences'[2] amounts to the annihilationist statement, 'For one existing harassed by feeling, stress is other-made.' Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

The Buddha teaches via the middle. So our view or the “Buddhist view” would be,

  ‘From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
  From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
  From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
  From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
  From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
  From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
  From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
  From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
  From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.’

From what I understand the aggregates aren't self

Correct (per SN 22.59).

  but now when a person dies

From the viewpoint of higher truth (that the aggregates are not self) there is no "person". The idea of a "person" is the same as the idea the aggregates are "self":

  The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clung-to-aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a
  clung-to-aggregate, feeling as a clung-to-aggregate, perception as a
  clung-to-aggregate, fabrications as a clung-to-aggregate,
  consciousness as a clung-to-aggregate. This, monks, is called the
  burden.

  And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is
  called the carrier of the burden.

  SN 22.22

  There are these five clung-to-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a
  clung-to-aggregate, feeling as a clung-to-aggregate, perception as a
  clung-to-aggregate, fabrications as a clung-to-aggregate,
  consciousness as a clung-to-aggregate. These five clung-to-aggregates
  are the self-identification described by the Blessed One.

  MN 44

  Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'

  SN 5.10

  the material aggregates of his body dissolve what remains who gets reincarnated ?

This question is unrelated to higher Buddhism. In MN 117, it is taught there are two sorts of right view. The view of 'not-self' is transcendent right view and the view of 'self reaping results of kamma' is worldly right view. The Buddha did not mix up the two sorts of right view.

An analogy is kindergarten for children vs university for adults. Calculus is not taught to children in kindergarten and basic arithmetic is not taught to adults at university. Similarly, not-self is not taught to children and reincarnation is not taught to adults.

  When the new material aggregates of the new body are born then they are different from the ones of the person who died .What defines that
  THIS person is in THAT body?

In higher truth, the idea "a person" or "self" dies is called "annihilationism" and the idea "a person" or "self" is reincarnated is called "eternalism", as follows:

  There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world to be
  eternal.

  There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
  what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
  proclaim their views? Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin
  asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has
  material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and
  originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is
  annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not
  exist after death, at this point the self is completely
  annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction,
  and extermination of an existent being.

  DN 1

In cultural Buddhism, because most faith follower Buddhists are not enlightened, they are taught and believe in "eternalism"; which is why they cling so tenaciously to metaphysical ideas of "rebirth".

In the history of Buddhism, there were heretic teachers, such as Buddhaghosa, who taught "not-self phenomena are reincarnated". This idea is heretical for at least two reasons:

To believe not-self is reincarnated destroys the incentive to do good personal kamma.
To believe not-self is reincarnated destroys the view of impermanence & dispassion required to realise Nibbana.

In the Pali suttas, it is clearly taught the same "person" inherits the results of "his" or "her" actions. That good & bad results follow from good & bad actions is what the scholars loosely translate as "rebirth" or "reappearance".


Is Nibbana a state of mind or an element (dhamma)? I have four parts of this question,

Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma?
If Nibbana is a state of mind, is it merely the uprooting of craving?
If the answer for the second question is "Yes", then why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness? Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving?
"One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?

Nibbana is asankhata dhatu (unconditioned element or unconditioned dhamma) therefore it is not a state of mind (MN 115).

Insight wisdom (vipassana) into the three characteristics uproots craving (SN 22.59).

Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana) of mind consciousness (Ud 8.1) but it is not a type of consciousness. This is why 'mind-objects' are called 'dhamme'; because they also include Nibbana.

It is because Nibbana is not a state of mind that a stream winner can taste the peace of Nibbana; even though their mind is not completely pure. This can be compared to feeling a cool breeze on a warm sunny day. Because the breeze is one thing & the sun is another thing, both the cool breeze & warm sun can be experienced together. Similarly, the cool peace of Nibbana (experienced from non-attachment) can be experienced by the stream-winner, even though the mind is not completely pure & cooled.

This said, when a stream-winner is in the stream, their mind is without asava (MN 117). In other words, it is inaccurate to say a stream-winner has craving; as though they always have craving. A stream-winner only has craving when their mindfulness has lapsed.

In conclusion, the mind attains Nibbana by using Path concentration & insight wisdom to uproot craving. The suttas say the Path (of concentration & insight) is conditioned. Therefore, the mind does not uproot craving by attaining Nibbana. First craving is uprooted using wisdom and what remains leftover is experiencing the peaceful element of Nibbana. SN 22.59 says:

  Seeing thus [with insight wisdom], 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 [uproots craving]. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released [Nibbana]. 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.'

It is the usual question about the difference between vinnana, mano and citta. If you want, you can say that the citta is what is in contact with the deathless (or getting the knowledge of the qualities of the deathless?), which makes it ''a thing'' (meaning a dhamma), which would fit well with the way to "do vipassana'' in the jhana, like here

  "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the
  first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?
  There is the case where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn
  from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first jhana:
  rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed
  thought and evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are
  connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and
  consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an
  arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness,
  not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done
  so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is
  peace, this is exquisite - the resolution of all fabrications; the
  relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion;
  cessation; Unbinding.'

The goal would be to detach the citta from  rupa, from the five cords of sensual pleasure, the asavas, the kilesas, from anything that is dukkha, which would be why the asekhas have realized the nirodha of rupa, nirodha of vedana, of vinnana and so on.

But you can also say that nibanna is a ''thought'' and then you talk about sati, mano and thoughts.
The ability to witness with the proper view is about sati like the buddha keeps saying here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.035.than.html and sati is the proper use of mano. Yoniso maniskhara is even more explicitly tied to mano.  Panna, sati and mano are tied. Panna is witnessing that a liberated citta is good and a non-liberated citta is bad, and witnessing a liberated citta. Panna would be viewed as sati applied to nibanna, to a liberated citta...

So a liberated citta is what is ''experienced'' and panna is knowing that the liberated citta is the end of the world. You cannot talk about nibanna without talking about the liberated citta AND the knowledge or witnessing of this liberated citta.

When nibanna does not happen by lack of sati and directing the citta towards nibanna right at the first jhana, this can also be done :

  The thought occurs to him, 'What if I, with the complete transcending
  of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, were to
  enter & remain in the cessation of perception & feeling.' Without
  jumping at the cessation of perception & feeling, he, with the
  complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception &
  feeling.

  "When a monk enters & emerges from that very attainment, his mind is
  pliant & malleable. With his pliant, malleable mind, limitless
  concentration is well developed. With his concentration well developed
  & limitless, then whichever of the six higher knowledges he turns his
  mind to know & realize, he can witness them for himself whenever there
  is an opening.

So  ''the cessation of perception & feeling'' still does not bring nibanna just like that, sati is still required to turn the citta towards

So far, all this leaves vinnana alone, besides the nirodha of vinnana. Then people wonder if arahants cognize things or not. So people speculate about what happens to vinnana when the citta is liberated. There are only 2 suttas explicitly about the Anidassana Viññāṇa, even worse they are in DN and MN, (which is not a good news for the people who take seriously this vinana), a sutta  in SN 12.64 talk about the "vinnana which does not grow" so they link it to their Anidassana Viññāṇa. Then people wonder if the citta is eternal or not, if the vinnana is eternal or not, if they are the true self or not, if they are conditioned or not.


Someone told me Buddha copied almost everything from Brahmanism, how accurate is that? I am fairly new to the Dhamma and this site specifically. I was told by an Indian person that dyana (meditation) was a part of a yoga system which became zen in china, dharma became dhamma, most of Buddhists texts are sutras, ideas of reincarnation, maya (phenomenon), nirvana, samaddhi, sat (truth), chitta (conciousness), daya (compassion), ahinsa are all Hindu themes reinterpreted.

How much did Sakyamuni reinterpreted on Brahmanism and how much is disinformed?

Dyana meditation is basically keeping your focus on one object. Various forms of it can be found in many religions. There's nothing exceptional about it. Even christians/muslims praying to a God is a type of concentration meditation that could lead to the first Dyana. In that case, the object of focus is conceptual or fictional.

In Buddhism also you can find types of Dyana meditations as they are useful methods of developing concentration and subduing defilements. But what makes Buddhism exceptional is Vipassana meditation. This meditation is not found in any other religion. Then there are so many unique teachings like the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, most of the teachings in the sutta, abhidhamma, vinaya pitakas that amount to 84,000 teachings.

So if someone claims that the Buddha copied almost everything from Yoga, it only speaks of his lack of knowledge in Buddhism.

Brahmins ate beef & strict propogadist of evil customs which we Buddhist cannot believe from 2500 years . China is a centre for Buddhism expansion to other regions as like srilanka who spreads Buddhism to far South East region of asia. As From South Asia , brahmins were group of propogadist who were involved in massacre of followers of Buddhism. Everytime you need to find out the way how our South Asian followers were vanished from their original roots of our Buddhist culture, as they were pressured to convert & murdered. Buddhism is most infly religious beliefs of South Asian community but vanished in previous centuries. But as we know reactions follows after actions , Srilanka is one of centre still follows our traditional Buddhist culture & some South Asian also cooking towards new recipe of Buddhism in India.


MN 72 - Why is a freed mind not "not reborn"? Three translations of Bhikkhu Sujato say:

  But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where
  are they reborn?

  Evaṃ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṃ upapajjatī ti?

  ‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.

  “Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.

  Well then, are they not reborn?

  Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī ti?

  ‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.

  “Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.

  MN 72

  Seeing this, a learned noble disciple becomes disillusioned with form,
  feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.

  Evaṃ passaṃ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati,
  vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati,
  viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati.

  Being disillusioned they become dispassionate. Being dispassionate
  they’re freed. When freed, they know ‘it is freed’.

  Nibbindaṃ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṃ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ
  hoti.

  They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been
  completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to
  any state of existence.’

  ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ
  itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.

  SN 22.59

  The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die.
  They are not shaken, and do not yearn.

  Muni kho pana, bhikkhu, santo na jāyati, na jīyati, na mīyati, na
  kuppati, na piheti.

  For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being
  reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die?
  Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they
  yearn?

  Tañhissa, bhikkhu, natthi yena jāyetha, ajāyamāno kiṃ jīyissati,
  ajīyamāno kiṃ mīyissati, amīyamāno kiṃ kuppissati, akuppamāno kissa
  pihessati?

  MN 140

Why does MN 72 say  "not reborn" does not apply to the freed mind (vimuttacitto) but SN 22.59 and MN 140 say "rebirth is ended" and the arahant is "not reborn"?

Well then, are they not reborn?
Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī ti?
‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.

I would suggest it has to do with the way this question is formulated. It's not about rebirth having ended but about pointing to a person because of the use of the word 'they'.
Talking about a 'they', 'him', 'her' doesn't apply anymore. So, the question is wrongly put.
That's my take on it.

Re. MN 72, isn't this like, "When you stop beating your wife? Did you ever, eventually, stop beating her? Or, have you not stopped beating her yet?" The only feasible answer is that that question "doesn't apply".

Re. SN 22.59 I think your opinion is that "rebirth" refers to the arising of self-views, so "not reborn" implies "no more self-views" (nor conceits).


Drunk monks and the 5th precept I have heard that the 5th precept was not a core of Buddhism, it was created later by the Buddha after some monks returned drunk from alms because they had something with alcohol (accidently I believe)

My first question is: Is this story true?

Many Buddhist school claim that the problem with alcohol is that it can cloud the mind and make it easier for breaking the other (more important) precepts. Based on that some schools are ok with lay people drinking in moderation, with the commitment of not getting to a point of losing control of their acts or doing something they will regret.

So, is drinking with moderation (socially) breaking the 5th precept?

I believe this is the story you are referring to. It's a great story explaining the origin of the monks' rule to avoid alcohol. It also shows a bit of the Buddha's sense of humor.
This is from "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html

"The drinking of alcohol or fermented liquors is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 51; BMC p.402)
The origin-story concerns Ven. Saagata who conquered a fierce naaga — a type of serpent with magical powers — by his meditation-developed psychic powers. The townspeople heard about this feat and wanted to make some sort of offering to him, upon which the 'group-of-six' bhikkhus impudently suggested that they all should give him alcohol. When he arrived on his almsround every household offered alcohol and he finally collapsed, drunk, at the town gate and had to be carried back to the monastery. He was laid down in a stupor with his head towards the Buddha but in his drunkenness he turned around so that his feet pointed at the Buddha.[97] The Buddha called attention to his changed behavior, remarking that he certainly could not oppose "even a salamander" in such a state.
The Buddha also said:
"Bhikkhus,... there are these four stains because of which samanas and brahmans glow not, shine not, blaze not. What are these four? Drinking alcoholic beverages... indulging in sexual intercourse... accepting gold and money... obtaining requisites through a wrong mode of livelihood." (A.II,53) (AB)

Again, this explains the monks' rule regarding alcohol. Regarding laypeople and the 5th precept, I'm not sure I understand your meaning of the significance of something having been created "later by the Buddha". Perhaps a Buddhist scholar could identify the timeline of the 5 precepts; but my simple way of thinking of it is that they were created by the Buddha during his lifetime and whether it was in the first years of his teachings or the last; it was a valuable teaching to help lay people make their lives simpler (less suffering) by avoiding bad deeds. And avoiding alcohol is helpful for many people to stay mindful enough to observe the other 4 precepts.
Whether observing the 5th precept means avoiding even a drop of alcohol or just avoiding drunkenness or "heedlessness" by laypeople varies by tradition.

Intoxication is prohibited but sometimes don't we drink medicine and thus HAVE to get intoxicated?

I remember reading somewhere in Buddhist sutra that it is OK to be intoxicated for medicine. Common sense would agree. If one is ill, taking care of the body--one's vehicle for Awakening--is the highest priority.

For example I remember my teacher Master Nan saying that when past masters had "Zen sickness" (a feverish state of intense, overwhelming, unstoppable creativity) their teachers often got them drunk to help them fall asleep and snap out of it. When they woke up, they had progressed past the stage safely.

Thus, the next question is how much is OK if not sick and trying to walk the fine line of intoxication and still be "Buddhist"?

Scientifically speaking, reversatrol is most potent in red wine. There is research that says that it reverses aging and is neo-cardiac in nature (builds and repairs heart cells!)!!
There is plenty of scientifically verified evidence about this, look it up.

I believe that taking it with such an aim is medicinal because one's intent is to heal the body--not to become intoxicated.

Thus, what does it come down to? The 2nd part of the Eightfold path: Right Intention.
Remember that the Buddha forbids intoxication NOT medication.

But if you find that you are using alcohol "medically" or "socially" and have become reliant on it for sleep, etc. ... then recognize that as a form of chronic intoxication! There is no independently valid reason for it.
You gotta think about it and decide what is going on... if you're doing it merely for pleasure or if there is some benefit.

Despite all this, I myself do not do ANY sort of intoxication, drinking or smoking and try to eat only what is necessary and specifically nutritional (foods can be considered an intoxicant as well!), keenly aware of the things that I am putting in myself and why.

At the worst, I use herbal tea to refreshen myself and warm my hands.
Proper meditation and yoga are powerful techniques as well which obviate the need for most worldly addictions including TV, weed, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I say this with experience because I used to be heavily involved in such a year ago when I did not have stable practices.

Summary: So use your thinking muscles and remember that the Buddha forbid intoxication but also forbid self-harm and upholds taking care of your body and mind (but not babying it or getting it addicted, which is intoxication).

  "And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case
  where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his 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, 'I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) & not create new
  feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless,
  & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating." --
  AN 3.16

If drinking alcohol is for the survival/continuance of your body (e.g. red wine) then it is OK. If it is to intoxicate, then it is not.


Can I practice Buddhism without meditating? If it's possible to do it, how should such practice look like? Will it be inferior to the practice of those who meditate?

The Buddhist 3 Fold Training or main parts of the Noble 8 Fold Path are:

Morality,
Mastery over the Mind and
Wisdom.

You can practice 1 without meditation. But need meditation for to develop the other two. Also if you develop the other two your morality also becomes stronger.

Doing 1 itself gives benefit but this is much more if you practice all 3 parts of the Training (the latter 2 parts relating to Meditation and mental development) and with the addition of Giving which in part of the bases of merit with Morality and Meditation being an overlap.

The ultimate Buddhist goal is The Path to Nirvana in which Vipassana plays a great role.

Of course. You can be a Buddhist without meditating. It is only to separate the mind and body of us. If you want to meditate, firstly, you could rest your mind and you can notice the inhalatation and exhalation from your nose. And when you do this, you may not need to sit correctly. But you have to notice your mind and changes in your body. That is one way meditation works.


What is the Buddhist perspective on child abuse? Suppose a father is abusing his 3 year old child. As a consequence, the child is suffering. Who is the cause of the child's suffering?

The Pali scriptures (SN 12.17) state, from the perspective of ultimate truth, that the cause of suffering is 'ignorance' (rather than 'one-self' or 'another').

However, in the conventional scenario presented in the question, the father is causing the suffering because a 3 year old child does not have the cognitive capacity to engage the Buddhist path.

What is occurring to the child has no relationship to any (imaginary) past lives. I have never read this idea in the Pali suttas, where suffering (dukkha), let alone the suffering of helpless small children, is attributed to past lives.

The suffering is due to the evil within the mind of the father because the child cannot overcome the in-born ignorance in their mind that is causing the suffering.

Dhammapada 137 clearly states there are "innocent" victims of crime & AN 3.61 states what a person feels in not related to past kamma.

  137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten
  states:

  138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges,
  loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging
  fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in
  hell.

~~~

  When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a
  contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those
  brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

The child is the cause of his own suffering in this lifetime. The Father is the perpetrator of the suffering inflicted on the child in this lifetime. By the laws of karma, the child suffers from their own actions of the past. The Father will suffer too as a result of the action he has taken against the child in this lifetime, when the soul within his human vehicle reincarnates again in a future lifetime, be it that he chooses ignorance for the remainder of this lifetime.

The same way that the child was born into this lifetime carrying the karma that caused his/her suffering from this lifetime. The child is living the consequence of his own actions of the past and therefore is the cause of his own suffering. The Father is the soul contact who is teaching the child his karmic lesson, and the person who inflicted the suffering, but the Father is not the actual cause of the suffering, by the laws of karma.

People can't grasp it because they are not viewing it in spiritual terms of the soul essence reincarnating into another human vehicle. People view it as a child being hurt and abused, an innocent child in this lifetime, but they neglect to acknowledge that this child's soul may have lived a life as a serial killer in a past and they are now having their own karmic debt repayed. Or what if in a past life the child was the Father's, Father and the Father was abused by the child in that lifetime, and this lifetime the child is carrying the karma from those actions that he/she now must repay, by the laws of karma. Everything is energy, what you give out must come back.

Every action has a consequence, you reap what you sow. If we are all taught to look within, as a natural way of life, we can heal and release some of this karma we all carry and heal the ancestral lines of our genetic dna. If we look within we can access our akashic records and learn what our karma is about, understand our life lessons, learn them and stop them from reoccuring. Of course in order for this to happen the Parent must first become aware before they become a Parent, and then raise the child in the same fashion so that the child has a chance to also be aware, and release attachments to emotions and the past.

The karma can be minimized but the lessons still need to be learned to end the repeating and to get out of the karmic wheel of reincarnation. But the suffering must still exist for people to grow and evolve. If life was always great why would we need to seek out our higher selves, why would we have a need to no longer be ignorant if their was never suffering or lessons to be learned we would cease existence. But, there are better ways of going about this than by staying ignorant. Everytime a harmful action is taken by someone, someone or something must then return that same action to the one who first created the harm.

And then that something or someone must also have someone or something return that energy back to them, and so the karmic wheel of reincarnation goes around and around. Until we all heal ourselves and others, learn to love each other unconditionally and accept that spiritually we are all of the same energetic consciousness, learn forgiveness, patience, non-judgment and selflessness, then the wheel will keep going.

That's nature and with nature comes karma. Heal your past karma and that of your ancestry, live in mindfulness, look within and connect to your higher self, create a balance of giving and receiving, love and treat everyone as equal, and live and act in kindness and honesty and you will only create good karma.


Are probabilistic physics and pratitya samutpada compatible? Can a physical theory be fundamentally probabilistic (such as the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics) without contradicting pratitya samutpada?

Clarification

Pratitya samutpada is about how all things arise in dependence on conditions. If there is such a thing as a probabilistic event, then I would say there is some part of that event which does not depend on conditions, only on chance, whatever that might mean.

Dependent origination is about how sorrow & grief arise. It is not related to physics.

Rovelli's relational interpretation and Nagarjuna (really the Buddha's anatta doctorine) agree, in that both deny the usefulness of observer independent states of systems.

  Huike said to Bodhidharma, "My mind is anxious. Please pacify it."
  Bodhidharma replied, "Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it." Huike
  said, "Although I've sought it, I cannot find it."
  "There,"
  Bodhidharma replied, "I have pacified your mind."

.. Also QM is only probabilistic upon measurement. Measurement is some acceptance of self, an 'x' or a 'y'.

Edit - chance within  QM is qualified by observing a collapse of a wave-function without interference by the observer (spontaneous collapse).. that is, just a thing, changing in and of itself. This has not been observed even once.

All other interactions within QM are relational - because only upon an observer affecting the observed, does any wave function collapse happen. There is no independent collapse observed yet. If there were, Dhamma would suffer unless there was an underlying layer to QM where collapse was made to become not-independent.. kinda like hidden variables. Both hidden variables and independent collapse seem to be unjustifiable through observed experiments atm though.


If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth? Anatta is often described as "not-self" which I understand to mean that our identities are illusions.  But it's also described as "soullessness" which I think implies that there is no mind other than the brain itself.

But many Buddhists believe in rebirth.  If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?

When most people think of "self" they think of some abstract core that is the subject of all experience and the agent of all actions. Buddha taught (and modern cognitive science tends to agree) that upon careful examination there is no such single core. Instead experiences result from interactions of multiple perceptory functions. Similarly, our actions are performed by a conglomerate of functions, without a single agent responsible for all choices.

When the notion of individual rebirth exists as an unexamined belief, it depends on this unexamined notion of "self" as its necessary foundation. Once practitioner is free from illusion of self (in practice, not just conceptually), the notion of individual birth/death/rebirth no longer applies. From this perspective, rebirth is a byproduct of attachment to a (substantial) self.

But because karma at large still continues to function, the infinitely forking/joining threads of causation that once were the subject of attachment continue to participate in activity and serve as causes for subsequent effects. In this sense, rebirth as principle goes on continuously whether we posit an individual or not.

To give this a more practical spin, instead of worrying about rebirth, we practitioners should focus on working towards deconstruction of self by reducing the strength of the illusion through practice of altruism and non-attachment, first and foremost at the microscopic level of thought-to-thought intention and reaction.

This is an excellent question. Karma is well accepted in Buddhism, but not the existence of the soul. This inconsistency raises the question of remnant reaction. Consider the following argument.

From the system of karma we know that a person who does the action will be the same person who will experience the reaction, not any one else. Suppose a person dies, then what will happen to the inexperienced remnant reactions? It can't just go away, can it? No, and we know from system of karma that the same person will born again to experience the pending reactions. So here is the question, what is common in both the persons that you say the new born one is the rebirth of the old deceased one? If the two persons are identical then there has to be something common in them, isn't it? So what is that fundamental unit that is common to both? It can't be the body, nor can it be the mind (as memory, tendencies, qualities, etc. are different). So what is the common element? The answer is soul. I have to keep it brief so can not go elaborate more but the short answer is soul exists.

Why did not Buddha acknowledge the existence of soul?

The mission and objective of Buddha was to ward of suffering of the people which is primarily caused by attachment. So He didn't acknowledge the existence of soul. But just because He didn't acknowledge its existence, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. He didn't acknowledge the existence of soul because it will create attachment to an eternal self. And where there is attachment suffering will undoubtedly follow. During His time in India people were doing Vedic sacrifices, yanjya, rituals, etc. to place there self in heaven etc. As they believed in the eternal soul, they were attached to it and hence putting effort to place it in heaven and higher realms by animal sacrifices in yanjya and rituals. So He didn't acknowledge the existence of soul to free followers from attachment towards an eternal self.

However, if you go into more deep then you will find that the soul exists in such a way that its existence can be safely overlooked. So even if you deny the existence of the individual soul you will not be completely wrong.


Does Buddhism have a notion of providence leading unbelievers? Whenever an unbeliever starts inquiring regarding Buddhism or the Buddha's teaching, do Buddhists see this as providence leading the unbeliever to Buddha's faith or something else? Does Buddhism's notion of providence extend beyond karma?

Buddhists do not believe in a creator God nor in his or her divine providence. Buddhists believe in the law of cause and effect. When someone encounters the Buddhadharma it is because the causes of such a meeting are established and manifest.

There is no notion of divine providence and it is held that the law of karma is sufficient and necessary to explain how people encounter the Buddhadharma. Hope this answers your question.

I'm not sure what "providence" is -- perhaps a combination of foresight and loving care for man.
I think there are elements of foresight -- "wisdom" features highly as a virtue; and if you're looking for parallels with the divine there are some elements of doctrine like Abhijñā (though I don't see that as central to the doctrine nor relevent to most practitioners).
As for loving care, you might find that in the Brahmaviharas which I think are meant to be a feature of Buddhist society, for example --

In Pali, the language of the Buddhist scriptures, these four are known under the name of Brahma-vihara. This term may be rendered by: excellent, lofty or sublime states of mind; or alternatively, by: Brahma-like, god-like or divine abodes.
These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are [etc.]

As for karma that's sometimes associated with "intention", and I suppose that "inquiring" is a consequence of various intentions -- to a large extent, the student's intentions. But it could also (since this is what you're asking) probably be traced back to the Buddha's intentions -- who, according to scripture, having found nibbana (nirvana), decides to teach: for the sake of those who will understand, see and hear.
And parents' and teachers'.

Can I tell you joke? I was told that, standing in a shop in Wales, someone was listening to two people talking Welsh -- and heard the word "efficient" used in a sentence. Apparently there's "no exact equivalent" for that word in Welsh! So they used the English word.
Similarly, "unbeliever" sounded to me like a Christian term -- Chritianity, with its emphasis on "faith" -- or "infidel".
Not that there is no Buddhist vocabulary (there is), but that word -- "unbeliever", rich in history -- struck me as having maybe "no exact equivalent".
How to explain what Buddhism is?
I guess I also see it as a consequence of characteristics of the dhamma (the doctrine).


Does craving include basic survival drives like hunger, thirst, reproduction? And how does one be free from craving food without starving to death ?

Hunger is not "craving" (tanha, technical Buddhist term). Craving is basically when you are in whatever state you are (let's call that X) and you imagine (visualize) some other state Y. And then you label Y as "desirable" and strongly wish that you were there, and then by inference state X becomes "unacceptable", hence you experience [mental/emotional] suffering. Makes sense?

Hunger is just a signal you get from your body: "need food". Craving is conceptual, hunger is not. Craving involves judging, taking sides. Hunger is just raw sensation.

In Buddhism, it says that hunger, thirst, and reproduction as old habits.
When craving (Tanha) for old habits they become new habits hence rebirth.


(Why) did the Buddha teach rebirth? Was rebirth introduced in the First or Second Turnings, and why did the Buddha teach it? E.g. was it necessary to understand emptiness, causality, etc.?
For example, I imagine that some "reasons why" might include:

Maybe it helps deemphasize a person's current lifetime, highlighting its impermanence, so that one does not cling to it or themselves.
On the other hand, for some, it seems to be a source of inspiration to persevere on the Path, for a "good rebirth".

Would any of the Buddhist doctrines, excluding karma and rebirth, fail to make sense without rebirth?

The Truth of Rebirth seems to be one of the larger points of dispute between participants on this site. See here and here for similar questions and answers. I guess this is not all that surprising to me since the site seems heavily represented by Western practitioners. In my experience it seems that westerners have (and I definitely include myself here) a particularly difficult time with the Truth of Rebirth as taught by the Buddha. Here is what Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu has to say about this:

  Yet as these Buddhist religions have come to the West, they have run
  into a barrier from modern Western culture: Of all the Buddha's
  teachings, rebirth has been one of the hardest for modern Westerners
  to accept. Part of this resistance comes from the fact that none of
  the dominant world-views of Western culture, religious or
  materialistic, contain anything corresponding to the idea of repeated
  rebirth. Plato taught it, but — aside from an esoteric fringe — few in
  the modern West have treated this side of his teaching as anything
  more than a myth.

  For people who have felt burned or repelled by the faith demands of
  Western religion, there is the added barrier that the teaching on
  rebirth is something that — for the unawakened — has to be taken on
  faith. They would prefer a Buddhism that makes no faith demands,
  focusing its attention solely on the benefits it can bring in this
  life.

There seem to be many approaches on this site:

Simply denying outright that the Buddha taught rebirth.
The Buddha taught the reality of rebirth as a (re)birth that takes place in this very life whenever self-views of "I" and "mine" occur. No "afterlife" concept of rebirth was taught or acknowledged by the Buddha.
Admitting he taught it, but insisting it was just skillful means.
Rebirth as a combination of metaphor and upaya.
Those who take rebirth at face value, but insist that mere experience can end.
Like above, but do not posit an end to this mere experience.
Those who think rebirth (generally) can be known incontrovertibly through reason alone.
Those who think rebirth requires a dose of faith to be known (generally).

And probably a number of other views that I've missed completely or misunderstood. Myself, I'm somewhere between 6, 7, and 8, I guess, but I struggle with this.

Was rebirth introduced in the First or Second Turnings, and why did the Buddha teach it?

To my mind, unquestionably it was taught and introduced. I think the Buddha taught it because it was/is a conventional truth and the Buddha taught the truth.

Would any of the Buddhist doctrines, excluding karma and rebirth, fail to make sense without rebirth?

Yes, I think there are obvious logical problems and inconsistencies that present if you deny the truth of rebirth. For instance, as BodhiWalker mentions above one could seek the end of suffering by merely ending this current life. Even more problematic, one could "liberate" others from suffering by murdering sentient beings painlessly. That's monstrous and I want nothing to do with it. I want to make quite clear, I'm sure this is not what others have in mind when denying or glossing the truth of rebirth. I'm emphatically not concluding that those who deny or gloss the truth of rebirth are murderous monsters, just that denying or glossing the truth of rebirth presents logical problems that I don't see a way around.

Anyway, I think Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article above is excellent and highly recommend reading it many times and contemplating these questions.

The Buddha taught rebirth because it is something real that is related to the arising of suffering; namely, the re-arising of the delusion of "self" as a result of the emotions created by kamma (actions). Whenever the idea of "I" or "mine" arises as a result of an action, this is "rebirth".

Discerning an absence of rebirth in the mind is necessary to understand emptiness. Also, rebirth (kamma & results) is one example of causality.

A Buddhist doctrine that make sense without rebirth is the Three Characteristics. Seeing the Three Characteristics is unrelated to rebirth.

Knowing Nirvana is also unrelated to rebirth although, similar to Emptiness, knowing Nirvana coincides with knowing an absence of rebirth in the mind.

As for a rebirth as an "afterlife", this is an unknowable unproveable primitive superstition. Any claims there is a "Truth of Afterlife Rebirth" is obviously a lie or falsehood because there is no evidence for this belief. It is only a "belief" but not a "truth".


Letting go in day to day life How to let go your own children. They are giving  hard time for me. I can't  go even . Because  they are young.but have problems.

What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"

  "For reflection, sir."

  "In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental
  actions are to be done with repeated reflection.

  "Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it:
  'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful
  bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on
  reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily
  action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily
  action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on
  reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be
  a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

  "While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This
  bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action,
  with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you
  know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you
  know that it is not... you may continue with it.

  "Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily
  action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to
  both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences,
  painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to
  the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having
  confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on
  reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a
  skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night
  in skillful mental qualities.

Majjhima  Nikaya 61

Concentrate on whether your behaviour is beneficial to you and them, and if not, adjust it accordingly.

This is by Kahlil Gibran, not a Buddhist, but the jist of his thought is not un-Buddhist!

  And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, Speak to us of
  Children.
       And he said: Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you
  but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to
  you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have
  their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls,
  For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot
  visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but
  seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries
  with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living
  arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the
  infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift
  and far. Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness; For
  even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that
  is stable.

My child is very stubborn, he is 5, and mostly learns through his own errors, not my translation of my errors to him - in my hope he avoids them for himself a-priori. People learn from their own errors for the most part, we can only guide them if they accept guidance. If they don't, guidance will only push them away or to rebellion, better accept if they demand distance, and wait until they see their errors, and return.

The solution to your question is first of all making own mind peaceful.
For this you can start with the practice of anapana meditation .

Once you start becoming peaceful with this in few days then make your children sit with you for meditation 5-10 minutes.

For all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh5ii6R6LTM

For Children
https://www.vridhamma.org/Anapana-and-Children

Thanks Dhamma!

Dhamma means universal


Question about Nichiren Buddhism More specifically, I am refering to the Soka Gakkai movement of Nichiren Buddhism. In one excerpt from the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, it, in essence, states that every time one says "nam-myoho renge kyo" that is the equivalent to reading the Lotus Sutra one time.

That doesn't really make any sense to me, so, why is that? I have a photo below of the direct excerpt:

Prior to Nichiren's time, reading the Lotus Sutra in its entirety was said to result in benefit, or good effects, in this life and the next. As part of Nichiren's efforts toward his goal of "saving all people" as he put it, he said that reciting the title (prefaced by the Sanskrit word Nam) was enough to gain the same benefit. It is in this context that Nichiren wrote. Here is a quote from the same letter (gosho), The One Essential Phrase, where he provides a rationale. As can be seen, he refers to earlier writers in support of his teaching.

  The spirit within one’s body of five or six feet may appear in just one’s face, which is only a foot long, and the spirit within one’s face may appear in just one’s eyes, which are only an inch across. Included within the two characters representing Japan is all that is within the country’s sixty-six provinces: the people and the animals, the rice paddies and the other fields, those of high and low status, the nobles and the commoners, the seven kinds of treasures and all the other precious gems. Similarly, included within the title, or daimoku, of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is the entire sutra consisting of all eight volumes, twenty-eight chapters, and 69,384 characters, without the omission of a single character. Concerning this, Po Chü-i[1] stated that the title is to the sutra as the eyes are to the Buddha. In the eighth volume of his Annotations on “The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra,” Miao-lo states, “When for the sake of brevity one mentions only the daimoku, or title, the entire sutra is by implication included therein.” By this he means that, although for the sake of brevity only the title of the sutra is spoken, the entire sutra is contained in the title alone.
  Everything has its essential point, and the heart of the Lotus Sutra is its title, or the daimoku, of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Truly, if you chant this in the morning and evening, you are correctly reading the entire Lotus Sutra.

And another, similar, quote from a different letter, Expedient Means and “Life Span” Chapters -

  First of all, when it comes to the Lotus Sutra, you should understand that, whether one recites all eight volumes, or only one volume, one chapter, one verse, one phrase, or simply the daimoku, or title, the blessings are the same. It is like the water of the great ocean, a single drop of which contains water from all the countless streams and rivers, or like the wish-granting jewel, which, though only a single jewel, can shower all kinds of treasures upon the wisher. And the same is true of a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, or a million such drops of water or such jewels. A single character of the Lotus Sutra is like such a drop of water or such a jewel, and the hundred million characters[6] are like a hundred million such drops or jewels.

(the quotes were added in response to a request in the comments.)

All sects dilute Buddha's message that only your efforts and that too in right directions can help you. This recitation or chanting has sounds which can calm you. Or the very fact that chanting helps you concentrate which helps in bringing you closer to meditative state. But is this the goal of Buddha's teachings? Buddha talked about only one goal i.e. liberation. One needs to be careful about different sects. No doubt they benefit you psychologically. But then your priorities should be clear.


Distinguishing Between Past Lives and The Active Imagination How could anyone recognize the difference between experiencing a past life recall and simply experiencing a vivid imagining of the mind? While meditating I often slip into states that take me outside my current sense of self and into another experience. Though I don’t believe this to be a past life recall, I often wonder if I experienced this 2000 years ago in Indian society, would I have consider this a past life? Just like past lives can be consider endlessly varied so can these vivid experiences.

It’s seems a typical answer to this question is, either, 1. Your not meditating good enough... or 2.There is no self and hence no past lives. I feel these are insufficient answers.

In regards to 1, I think maybe people misunderstand my interpretation of imagining. I do not mean an intentionally based conjuring of thoughts or day dreaming. It is in deep stillness that these conditions arise, taking on the appearance of life experiences, and they appear  distinct from my current life situations.

In regards to 2, I take non-self or the emptiness of self and things to mean the impermanence of states of being or existing. We are confined to bodies, that is to say, the neurons in my brain control the movement of my thumb typing this. Of course we are socially, biologically, and environmentally interconnected and none of our actions goes uninfluenced by the actions of others as a hole. Yet at the end of the day my bank account number belongs to me and I am legally responsible for my actions within society.

According to the sutta below, one has to have a bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, steady and imperturbable mind immersed in concentration that can be directed towards the recollection of past lives. A mind full of imagination does not fulfill this criteria.

From MN 4:

  When my mind had become immersed in samādhi (concentration) like this  —purified,
  bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, workable, steady, and
  imperturbable — I extended it toward recollection of past lives. I
  recollected many kinds of past lives.

  That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty,
  fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths; many eons
  of the world contracting, many eons of the world evolving, many eons
  of the world contracting and evolving. I remembered: ‘There, I was
  named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my
  food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life
  ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else.
  There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this,
  and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that
  was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn
  here.’ And so I recollected my many kinds of past lives, with features
  and details.

According to SN 22.79, the purpose of recollecting past lives is simply to become disenchanted with the change in the five aggregates, and the suffering associated with it, in the past and the future. It does not matter what is the content of the recollection. This can also be found in this answer.

If you wondering whether this refers to literal physical rebirth or metaphorical thought rebirth, perhaps this quote from the same sutta can help you:

  When my mind had become immersed in samādhi (concentration) like this — purified,
  bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, workable, steady, and
  imperturbable — I extended it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth
  of sentient beings.

  With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient
  beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful
  and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient
  beings are reborn according to their deeds: ‘These dear beings did bad
  things by way of body, speech, and mind. They spoke ill of the noble
  ones; they had wrong view; and they chose to act out of that wrong
  view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a
  place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. These dear beings,
  however, did good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They never
  spoke ill of the noble ones; they had right view; and they chose to
  act out of that right view. When their body breaks up, after death,
  they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ And so, with
  clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient beings
  passing away and being reborn — inferior and superior, beautiful and
  ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient beings
  are reborn according to their deeds.

The Buddha did not ever recollect any "past lives". The Buddha only recollected what he called "past abodes" or "past adherences" (literally: "past homes"), which referred to when in the past his mind ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as "self". This can be read in SN 22.79.

Therefore, if the instructions & teachings in SN 22.79 are understood, there will not arise the question being asked about "imagination".

For example, when you were 4 years old, you identified yourself as "my mother's son" or "daughter". Then, when you were 20 years old, you identified yourself as "a communist" or "capitalist".

Every time in this life your mind considered itself as: "I am this", "I am that", "this is me", "this is mine", "I like this", "I like that", etc, and your mind "settled into", "established" or "defined" itself as some type of "identity", each of these "I" and "me" is a "past abode".

For example, if i truly believe: "I was student, I was a lawyer, I had a wife, I was a husband, I hated TV", etc, each of these is a "past abode".


If someone was an Once-returner in last life how can he know that ? There are 4 stages in the path to nirvana.  one of them is called "Once-returner" and they will be born only once as a human. So my question is , If Someone was an once-returner in last life , how can he know it in this life ? And if he does nothing in this life to attain nirvana, will he automatically be arahath and no rebirths?

"So my question is , If Someone was an once-returner in last life , how can he know it in this life ?"

When one has attained to stream entry and the higher stages such as Once-returner etc. both ones morality and spiritual faculties (indriyas) are well developed and firmly established.
When they are mature and well developed we call them the Five Powers. They work in unison each balancing and strengthening each other further.

This creates a powerful momentum and that momentum might mean that a Once-returner does not have the possible to "stop" on his/her path. That being would be so inclined towards Nibbana that anything else is not possible.

A Once-returner has done away with 3 of the lower 5 fetters and have weakened fetter no. 4 and 5. Especially the removal of fetter no. 2 (doubt in the Buddha) is important. A Once-returner will have full confidence in the Buddha and his teaching as he/she has already destroyed fetters and entered into the noble path.

  "And if he does nothing in this life to attain nirvana, will he automatically be arahath and no rebirths?"

I'm not sure its possible to do nothing once one has entered into the stream.

Either way the Once-returner still needs to practice in order to remove the 5 higher fetters thereby attaining to Arahantship.

A Once-returner will be reborn one more time into the Sense-sphere Realm which contains; the Hell realm, Pretas, Animal Kingdom, Asuras, Human Realm and Deva Realm (heavenly realm).

As the 3 lower fetters has been destroyed a Once-returner can only be reborn in either the Human or Heavenly Realm.

I have not read in the Pali suttas of any examples of when a non-arahant noble-one was reincarnated back to earth as a human being.

For example, the idea that a stream-enterer has seven more lives has no basis in the suttas because the sutta (SN 13.1) that has the phrase "seven more times at most" does not mention "lives" but refers to seven more fetters to breakthrough.

I have not read anywhere a logical explanation of what the term "once-returner" means, apart from the fetters broken through or reduced.

Since all arahants at one time were stream-enterers, these terms obviously do not refer to lifetimes.


What is the meaning of Dhammavicaya What is the exact meaning of the second factor of Enlightenment 'Dhammavicaya'? Does it mean: enquiry of the Dhamma (buddhasasana)? Or is it the enquiry (= tilakkhana) of all dhammas i.c. all phenomena? Or both?

The sutta says:

  Abiding thus mindful, he investigates and examines that state (dhammaṃ) with wisdom and embarks upon a full inquiry into it. On whatever occasion,
  abiding thus mindful, a bhikkhu investigates and examines that state (dhammaṃ) with wisdom and embarks upon a full inquiry into it—on that occasion
  the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor is aroused in him,
  and he develops it, and by development it comes to fulfilment in him.

The word 'dhammaṃ' above is 'singular' (rather than plural). Therefore, dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgo (the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor) appears to mean examining satisambojjhaṅgo (the mindfulness enlightenment factor) with wisdom.

In the essay The Seven Factors of Enlightenment, Piyadassi Thera wrote in the footnotes:

  Keen investigation of the dhamma (dhammavicaya)

  Dhamma is a multisignificant term. Here it means mind and matter (nama-rupa); dhammavicaya is the investigation or analysis of this
  conflux of mind and body, and all component and conditioned things.

In Bhikkhu Nanamoli's work on the Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification), he referred to dhammavicaya as investigation-of-states.

In the book The Seven Factors of Enlightenment, Ven. Dhammajiva wrote:

  When you are mindful, you are able to investigate the primary object.
  Investigation (dhammavicaya) is what differentiates samatha from
  vipassanā.   Dhamma is mind and matter and vicaya is investigation. Dhammavicaya is investigation into the operation of
  mind and matter

  In the samatha practice, you dwell on the concentration that is
  being developed, but there is no exploration or penetration into the
  phenomena.    So the mind  superficially observes the objects without
  much investigation or understanding of their true nature.

  To work with investigation of the dhamma, you must penetrate into
  the phenomena. A yogi must directly note all mind objects and matter
  (nāma and rūpa) that arise at each of the six sense doors during
  the practice. Become familiar with them, investigate them and
  penetrate into their true characteristics. This is the vipassanā
  practice.


Am I condemned for an extramarital affair? A long time ago I had a romantic relationship with a married woman, and later I regretted. How is this seen in Buddhism?

It is classified as sexual misconduct. According to the Cunda Kammaraputa Sutta:

  And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily action? There is
  the case where a certain person takes life, is a hunter,
  bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to
  living beings. He takes what is not given. He takes, in the manner of
  a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and
  have not been given by them. He engages in sensual misconduct. He
  gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers,
  their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or
  their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments,
  or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is
  made impure in three ways by bodily action.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html

However, that doesn't mean that you are "condemned." You did something that wasn't right, but if you recognize that you did something wrong and strive to do better in the future, that's all you should do. In the Samaññaphala Sutta King Ajatasattu confessed to the Buddha that he had murdered his own father, which in Buddhism is one of 5 Garu Kammas, the 5 most heinous acts a person could possibly commit:

  "...King Ajatasattu said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned,
  to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to
  carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in
  the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning —
  made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the
  Dhamma, and to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me
  as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day
  forward, for life.

  "A transgression has overcome me, lord, in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill my father — a righteous
  man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership. May the
  Blessed One please accept this confession of my transgression as such,
  so that I may restrain myself in the future."

  "Yes, great king, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill your father — a
  righteous man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership.
  But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in
  accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a
  cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,
  seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with
  the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future."
       http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

The Buddha did not condemn King Ajatasattu for his evil act, but encouraged him to have a change of heart and live an ammended life. He did the same for Angulimala the Serial Killer (Angulimala, his nickname, means garland of fingers because he kept his victim's fingers on a string as a garland) having him become a Monk and when Angulimala saw a woman in childbirth and wanted to help, the Buddha said this to ease Angulimala's feelings of guilt over killing so many people:

  "In that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her,
  'Sister, since I was born I do not recall intentionally killing a
  living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you,
  wellbeing for your fetus.'"

  "But, lord, wouldn't that be a lie for me? For I have intentionally
  killed many living beings."

  "Then in that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to
  her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall
  intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be
  wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.'"

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html

The Buddha taught people guilty of the most heinous things to change their ways but to move on and not dwell on their previous errors. If the Buddha encouraged a man guilty of killing his father and a serial killer not to dwell on guilt, how much more would he encourage someone who committed adultery to simply have a change of heart and not dwell on guilt.

First, if you want to live according to the five precepts which are :

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

In my understanding sexual misconduct would be to abuse or molest someone, going against his or her will, putting you body in danger etc...

I don't think you broke any of those. Now I think personally that if nobody was hurted there is no reason for you to feel remorse.

There is no "moral" properly speaking in Buddhism, so there is no "guilt", it is more about whether you want to follow a practice leading toward liberation of suffering and if you want so, Buddhism ask you to follow a set of comportemental rules that are necessary to walk this path.


Brain and heart dualism I’ve been meditating for sometime now, and it’s apparent that my mind and heart are not in sync.
I’m often in confused stage because my mind says one thing while my heart says something else and my awareness is in total confused mode trying to interpret these two entities.
While meditating of course these dualities do not arise because the focus and attention is in single object unless if I do insight meditation.
I would be really appreciate if anyone could give me an dharma insight on what’s happening here.

I’m often in confused stage because my mind says one thing while my heart says something else and my awareness is in total confused mode trying to interpret these two entities.

It'll be difficult to discuss in more details without some concrete examples/instances of the above, for quite oftenly, what one's "heart wants" while one hasn't attained enlightenment ususually is just a romanticized/sanitized way of sayin what one's "desire/lust wants". Just like how many times engaged couples explain away the break-up of their relationship as due to the man/woman simply "following their heart" to cheat on the fiance and had an affair with a different man/woman, etc.

Buddhist practise is to think in the manner the Buddha taught us to think, such as thoughts of renunciation, good-will and harmlessness.


Parinibbāna in secular Buddhism I take it that an important claim of secular Buddhism is that the Buddha never actually taught literal rebirth.

What happens during parinibbāna according to secular Buddhism? How is it different from any other death? If there is no difference, how do secular Buddhists explain the very existence of this term? Can any death be called parinibbāna?

In my understanding, the notion of Nirvana was a nod towards pre-Buddhist (Inc. Jain) ideas of the times. Nirvana was something transcental, something ultimate everyone spoke about but barely anyone could define.

When The Buddha achieved his Breakthrough, he mapped his ideas back to preexisting notions, to make it easier to communicate with people. So Nirvana is a bit tongue-in-cheek term, the so-called Nirvana. The Buddha attained what he himself called "Liberation of mind from suffering through Wisdom", which he equated with the Nirvana everyone at the times were looking for.

Then, the notion of Parinirvana is an even more ironic gesture. Since "Nirvana in this life" was actualized by not holding on to anything that could create a basis for suffering, death of "someone who is like this" (Tathagata) was the ultimate act of not holding on to anything to the highest degree possible, thus it can be half-jokingly called Super-Nirvana or Parinirvana.

Regular people die while still grasping at things, and so their death leaves an element of regret which then lives on as a negative impulse affecting the lives of people to come.

The Buddha's death is the ultimate act of letting go. It's an act of letting things go on their own course, governed only by Natural Law. The Buddha haven't attempted to stay behind and continue teaching Dharma indefinitely - which would be an act of grasping. Instead, his Parinirvana is an example to all of us Buddhists to not force the right Dharma on everyone, nor be aggressive in teaching and saving people, but to let things play out naturally while helping whenever we can.

From a secular perspective, there is no such thing as rebirth or reincarnation.  When you die, you die.  Karma doesn't carry forward as what you did dies with you.  There is no rebirth cycle to end, so the fact there is a buddhist phrase for it doesn't mean anything.

The Problem With Reincarnation


Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas? I don't know a lot about those two, but I hear that they are full of wisdom. Since they date farther back than buddhism, I was wondering if the Buddha ever mentioned them.

What did he think of them?

If he didn't mention them as such, he probably mentioned some concepts that are contained in them; Apart from obvious concepts contained in those two that also are within Buddhist thought (E.g. Karma).

The original Vedas themselves have little that a Buddhist would consider "wisdom", I think, being comprised mainly of battle hymns, sacrificial procedures, and ceremony.  They are mentioned often in the Pali texts, e.g.:

13.‘Well then, Vaseṭṭha, what about the early sages of those Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas, the makers of the mantras, the expounders of the mantras, whose ancient verses are chanted, pronounced and collected by the Brahmins of today, and sung and spoken about — such as Atthaka, Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhāradvāja, Vāsettha, Kassapa, Bhagu - did they ever say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahmā appears”?’ ‘No, Reverend Gotama.’
14.‘So, Vāseṭṭha, not one of these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas has seen Brahmā face to face, nor has one of their teachers, or teacher’s teachers, nor even the ancestor seven generations back of one of their teachers. Nor could any of the early sages say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahmā appears.” So what these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas are saying is: “We teach this path to union with Brahmā that we do not know or see, this is the only straight path...leading to union with Brahmā.” What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Such being the case, does not what these Brahmins declare turn out to be ill-founded?’ ‘Yes indeed, Reverend Gotama.’
--DN 13 (Walshe, trans)

Since the rest of the Vedic literature, including the Upanishads, grew up around the time of the Buddha himself, it isn't mentioned as such, but the above quote is actually more applicable to the Upanishadic tradition than the original Vedas.
The texts also make various references to the five Vedas, e.g.:

the Three Vedas with their vocabularies, liturgy, phonology, and etymology, and the histories as a fifth.
-- MN 95 (Bodhi, trans)

Though I'm not sure this has anything to do with the Upanishads.
Short answer, yes, the Buddha mentioned the Vedas often, but the word "upanishad" was probably not yet in common use during his lifetime. It appears in the name of one of the Brahmanas (the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana) composed before the Buddha, but probably wasn't used to refer to an entire genre of literature until much later.
As to what he thought about them, here's a passage from the Jatakas that exemplifies his thoughts while still a Bodhisatta (and rhymes, too):

"These Veda studies are the wise man's toils,
The lure which tempts the victims whom he spoils;
A mirage formed to catch the careless eye,
But which the prudent passes safely by.
The Vedas have no hidden power to save
The traitor or the coward or the knave;
The fire, though tended well for long years past,
Leaves his base master without hope at last.
Though all earth's trees in one vast heap were piled
To satisfy the fire's insatiate child,
Still would it crave for more, insatiate still,—
How could a Nāga hope that maw to fill?
Milk ever changes,—thus where milk has been
Butter and curds in natural course are seen;
And the same thirst for change pervades the fire,
Once stirred to life it mounts still higher and higher.
Fire bursts not forth in wood that 's dry or new,
Fire needs an effort ere it leaps to view;
If dry fresh timber of itself could burn,
Spontaneous would each forest blaze in turn.
If he wins merit who to feed the flame
Piles wood and straw, the merit is the same
When cooks light fires or blacksmiths at their trade
Or those who burn the corpses of the dead.
But none, however zealously he prays
Or heaps the fuel round to feed the blaze,
Gains any merit by his mummeries,—
The fire for all its crest of smoke soon dies.
Were Fire the honoured being that you think,
Would it thus dwell with refuse and with stink,
Feeding on carrion with a foul delight,
Where men in horror hasten from the sight?
Some worship as a god the crested flame,
Barbarians give to water that high name;
But both alike have wandered from their road:
Neither is worthy to be called a god.
To worship fire, the common drudge of all,
Senseless and blind and deaf to every call,
And then one's self to live a life of sin,—
How could one dream that this a heaven could win?
These Brahmins all a livelihood require,
And so they tell us Brahma worships fire;
Why should the increate who all things planned
Worship himself the creature of his hand?
Doctrines and rules of their own, absurd and vain,
Our sires imagined wealth and power to gain;
"Brahmins he made for study, for command
He made the Khattiyas; Vessas plough the land;
Suddas he servants made to obey the rest;
Thus from the first went forth his high behest ."
We see these rules enforced before our eyes,
None but the Brahmins offer sacrifice,
None but the Khattiya exercises sway,
The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey.
These greedy liars propagate deceit,
And fools believe the fictions they repeat;
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma one th’ injust among,
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
Those men are counted pure who only kill
Frogs, worms, bees, snakes or insects as they will,—
These are your savage customs which I hate,—
Such as Kamboja  hordes might emulate.
If he who kills is counted innocent
And if the victim safe to heaven is sent,
Let Brahmins Brahmins kill—so all were well—
And those who listen to the words they tell.
We see no cattle asking to be slain
That they a new and better life may gain,—
Rather they go unwilling to their death
And in vain struggles yield their latest breath.
To veil the post, the victim and the blow
The Brahmins let their choicest rhetoric flow;
"The post shall as a cow of plenty be
Securing all thy heart's desires to thee";
But if the wood thus round the victim spread
Had been as full of treasure as they said,
As full of silver, gold and gems for us,
With heaven's unknown delights as overplus,
They would have offered for themselves alone
And kept the rich reversion as their own.
These cruel cheats, as ignorant as vile,
Weave their long frauds the simple to beguile,
"Offer thy wealth, cut nails and beard and hair,
And thou shalt have thy bosom's fondest prayer."
The offerer, simple to their hearts' content,
Comes with his purse, they gather round him fast,
Like crows around an owl, on mischief bent,
 And leave him bankrupt and stripped bare at last,
The solid coin which he erewhile possessed,
Exchanged for promises which none can test.
Like grasping strangers  sent by those who reign
The cultivators' earnings to distrain,
These rob where’er they prowl with evil eye,—
No law condemns them, yet they ought to die.
The priests a shoot of Butea must hold
As part o’ the rite sacred from days of old;
Indra's right arm ’tis called; but were it so,
Would Indra triumph o’er his demon foe?
Indra's own arm can give him better aid,
’Twas no vain sham which made hell's hosts afraid.
"Each mountain-range which now some kingdom guards
Was once a heap in ancient altar-yards,
And pious worshippers with patient hands
Piled up the mound at some great lord's commands."
So Brahmins say,—fie on the idle boast,
Mountains are heaved aloft at other cost;
And the brick mound, search as you may, contains
No veins of iron for tile miner's pains.
A holy seer well known in ancient days,
On the seashore was praying, legend says;
There was he drowned and since this fate befell
The ocean's waves have been undrinkable.
Rivers have drowned their learned men at will
By hundreds and have kept their waters still;
Their streams flow on and never taste the worse,
Why should the sea alone incur the curse?
And the salt-streams which run upon the land
Spring from no curse but own the digger's hand.
At first there were no women and no men;
’Twas mind first brought mankind to light,—and then,
Though they all started equal in the race,
Their various failures made them soon change place;
It was no lack of merit in the past,
But present faults which made them first or last.
A clever low-caste lad would use his wit,
And read the hymns nor find his head-piece split;
The Brahmins made the Vedas to their cost
When others gained the knowledge which they lost.
Thus sentences are made and learned by rote
In metric forms not easily forgot,—
The obscurity but tempts the foolish mind,
They swallow all they're told with impulse blind.
Brahmins are not like violent beasts of prey,
No tigers, lions of the woods are they;
They are to cows and oxen near akin,
Differing outside they are as dull within.
If the victorious king would cease to fight
And live in peace with his friends and follow right,
Conquering those passions which his bosom rend,
What happy lives would all his subjects spend!
The Brahmin's Veda, Khattiya's policy,
Both arbitrary and delusive be,
They blindly grope their way along a road
By some huge inundation overflowed.
In Brahmin's Veda, Khattiya's policy,
One secret meaning we alike can see;
For after all, loss, gain and glory, and shame
Touch the four castes alike, to all the same.
As householders to gain a livelihood
Count all pursuits legitimate and good,
So Brahmins now in our degenerate day
Will gain a livelihood in any way.
The householder is led by love of gain,
Blindly he follows, dragged in pleasure's train,
Trying all trades, deceitful and a fool,
Fallen alas! how far from wisdom's rule."
-- Jat 543 (Cowell, trans)

As a Buddha, he seems to have become a bit more diplomatic, but still has little good to say about worship of fire, brahma, or the Vedas in general.

There are well over hundred Upanishads in existence but only a dozen or less of these are considered as Pre-buddhist. These are the Upanishads commented on by the Medieval Hindu commentator Sankara  who flourished in the eighth century CE. They are also the ones that were considered as the “principal Upanishads” by early Western commentators like Paul Deussen. The earliest of the extant Upanishads are the Bṛihadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya Upanishads all in prose. Not only are they the earliest but also the longest accounting for over three-quarters of the principal Upanishads. They are considered as being composed about the sixth century BCE. Three other prose Upanishads are also considered pre-Buddhist. These are the Taittiriya, Aitreya and Kausitaki Upanishads. The other “principal” Upanishads were the Kena, the Kaṭha, the Iśā, the Muṇḍaka, the Praśna, the Māṇḍūkya, and the Śvetāśvatara.

Buddha did not reject vedas or vedic philosophy, he rejected the evil practices and rituals in Vedas:

  In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:

  Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati
  Bhooripanjo.

  People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high
  and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands
  Dharma and does not waver.

  Sutta Nipat 503:

  Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema …….

  One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative,
  intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits.

  Sutta Nipat 1059:

  Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam……

  One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic
  Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly
  things.

  Sutta Nipat 1060:

  Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja…..

  I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards
  the world and becomes free from sins.

  Sutta Nipat 846:

  Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso….

  One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by
  hearsay and delusions.

  Sutta Nipat 458:

  Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi

  I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets
  success.

  Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't
  opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like
  animal sacrifice, caste system.

when Mahatma Buddha questioned birth-based casteism, animal sacrifice and other nonsense practices, he was answered that Vedas sanction so. Thus, like any sane morally upright person would do, Mahatma Buddha stated that: “If Vedas sanction these evil practices, then I reject Vedas.”


Was Tirupati Balaji a Buddhist Shrine? I had read occasionally on internet that Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine. So Was Tirupati Balaji a Buddhist Shrine ?

There's a book by K. Jamanadas "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine", whose preface starts with,

  [This book] has potential credibility to create
  controversies unknown to historical writing and the Hindu common folks who flock to worship Tirupati Balaji
  as one of the supreme deities. It is also a new challenge to indologist at a time when politically imbued
  scholars are engaged to wash out their hands by proving and disproving claims of Hindus and the Muslims
  against each other as they did over the issue of Ayodhya Shrines.

Its conclusion is that

  The image of Lord Venkatesvara was not sculptured by the artist as an image of Vishnu, but that of
  Avalokitesvara, sometimes in the reign of Kalabhras, after the period of Mamulanur, and before the period of
  Silappadhikaran, around 3rd to 5th century A.D.

The article "Is Tirupati Balaji Temple a Buddist Temple" concludes that it wasn't:

Conclusion
The Conclusion is that the Tirupati is a Vishnu temple all along. Since the temple has been built around 9th century AD. It is after 9th century AD that the hill is said to be holy place. So any account which says that the hill is holy(sri or Thiru venkata) is after 9th century AD. This applies any work or devote singing on Tirupati. The dispute seems to be primarily between Shivite and Vaishnavite, because of the Shiva Temple at the base of Tirupati which predate the Tirupati temple. Indologist seems to have introduced some confusion here. There are no inscriptions about Tripati temple, before 9th century AD, because the temple did not exist then, not because it was a Buddhist Shrine.

Its arguments are:

The expression "Dig underneath every Hindu temple, there will be a Buddhist temple" is rhetoric, not always true (some new temples are built on new sites)
The historical record (including the puranas) isn't clear
Early (Buddhist) temples were rock-cut, whereas this is a standalone temple
The earliest inscription mentioning this place mentions a hill but not a temple. The earliest inscription in the temple is from 830 AD.


The "conventional" self - in what way can it be accepted? Buddhist writers, such as Joseph Goldstein and Thupten Jinpa, say that although the self is not intrinsically real, that we still accept the "conventional" idea of self. For example:

  If we arrive at the knowledge that the self at which we grasp is empty, we may imagine this means that we as individuals with personal identities do not exist.
  But of course this is not the case--our own personal experiences demonstrate that we as subjects and agents of our own lives, we certainly exist.
  So how then do we understand the content of this insight into absence of Self?
  What follows from this insight?
  We must be very clear that only the self that is being grasped as
  intrinsically real needs to be negated. The self as a conventional
  phenomenon is not rejected.
  This is a crucial aspect of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness.
  Without understanding this distinction, one cannot fully understand the meaning of no-self.

If we believe anatta, then how, specifically, can the "conventional" self be accepted? Do they mean we only pretend that the illusion of self is real in order to talk to people in everday language? Or is there some part of the concept of self that even Buddhism cannot reject?

The usage of the word 'self' in a conventional sense is the same as the usage of the word 'chair'. There's nothing intrinsic in the material it is made of that makes a chair a chair. But the usage of concepts are useful in day to day life for the purpose of identifying functions.

Namo Buddhaya. As far as I a understand there is no conventional self. The residual self which is present due to clinging, leads to existence of what you may call conventional self.
The 'I' which you read in the sentence above is due to clinging to one , few or all the aggregates.

The following sutta(SN 22.47) will help you understand better:

  At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard
  anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five
  aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. What
  five?

  “Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the
  noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is
  not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in
  their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or
  form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self …
  perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as
  self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in
  self, or self as in consciousness.

  “Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ have not
  vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a
  descent of the five faculties—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the
  nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is,
  bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element
  of ignorance. When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a
  feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’
  occurs to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of
  form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will
  be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor
  nonpercipient’—these occur to him.