Did Buddha know the properties and behaviour of the matter fully? How did Buddha fully understood the world and proclaimed it without the knowledge of all experiments of science? Was his knowledge about the properties and the behavior of matter limited?
Thanks.

No, the Buddha lived in an age where things such as germs, atoms, nuclei, molecules, thermodynamics, neurology, etc. were unknown. This is largely irrelevant to Buddhism, though there are similarities in their values and approach.
Science attempts to create theories and experiments that are independent of the human range of senses and way of thinking. The best example is quantum mechanics, which is beyond both our sensory range and our intuition. Science is therefore objective and experimental in nature.
Buddhism is a path to seeing the true nature of things through the human perspective, in particular the mind. It is therefore anthropocentric and experiential. Trying to describe or analyze the path is counterproductive, it is to be esperienced.

Joshu asked Nansen: ‘What is the path?’

Nansen said: ‘Everyday life is the path’.

Joshu asked: ‘Can it be studied?’

Nansen said: ‘If you try to study, you will be far away from it’.

The question then remains, does attaining Nirvana/Kensho/Satori render a complete understanding of the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, neurology, etc? The answer is no. While this attainment does give the practitioner a new (and very important) understanding about the one-ness, interconnectivity, and emptiness of all phenomena, it does not endow with knowledge equal to or beyond the body of science.
Again, this is not central or essential to Buddhism, just like it is not essential to know about thermonuclear reaction to feel the warmth of the sun on your face, or to know neurology to lift your arm. It is possible to experience Mind without understanding Mind. The (mythical) discourse between Bodhidharma and the Chinese emperor illustrates this very well:

The emperor asked: “What is the ultimate meaning of the holy truths of
Buddhism?”

“Vast emptiness, no holiness,” replied Bodhidharma.

“Who stands here before me?” asked Emperor Wu.

“I do not know” said Bodhidharma.

The question “Who stands here before me?” is taken as "who are you in essence, as an enlightened person?", i.e. "what is the nature of Mind"?

This question, similar to some answers, is lost in materialism. About materialism, the Thai monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu said:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't understand
Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so dense that
they are blind to everything but material things.  Then, there is the
language which is spoken by those who understand reality (Dhamma),
especially those who know and understand reality in the ultimate
sense.  This is another kind of language
Buddhadasa

Therefore, before I make an effort to answer this question from the Pali suttas, I recommend to read the very excellent book by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu called Two Kinds of Language. Reading this books can save from lots of headaches.

In respect to the Pali suttas:

The term "lokavidu" or "knower of the world" is a title of the Lord Buddha (which real Buddhists chant with morning & evening Pali chanting). The suttas say:

Here, bhikkhus, a Tathāgata appears in the world, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One, possessing perfect knowledge and conduct, a sublime one, a world-knower (lokavidū), an unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, a teacher of devas and humans, an enlightened one, a Lord. He teaches Dhamma that is good at the outset, good in the middle and good at the end, with its correct meaning and wording, and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfilment and complete purity.
Iti 84

About the meaning of "lokavidu", Iti 112 provides some answers, as follows:

Bhikkhus, the world has been fully understood by the Tathāgata; the
Tathāgata is released from the world. The origin of the world has been
fully understood by the Tathāgata; the origin of the world has been
abandoned by the Tathāgata. The cessation of the world has been fully
understood by the Tathāgata; the cessation of the world has been
realized by the Tathāgata. The course leading to the cessation of the
world has been fully understood by the Tathāgata; the course leading
to the cessation of the world has been developed by the Tathāgata.
Bhikkhus, in the world with its devas, māras and brahmās, with its
recluses and brahmins, among humankind with its princes and people,
whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought and
reflected upon by the mind—that is fully understood by the Tathāgata:
therefore he is called the Tathāgata.

The terms (above) "origin of the world" & "cessation of the world" refer to the conceptual world of "beings" or "identity" (called "birth") created by ignorance & craving; as explained in SN 12.44, as follows:

And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms
there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is 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. From clinging 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. This is the
origination of the world.
... And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms
there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless
cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of
clinging. From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of
becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation,
pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this
entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

That the word "birth" ("jati") refers to the conceptual creation of ideas of this & that "category" ("nikaye") of "beings" ("satta") based on the manifestation & use of their aggregates is clearly explained in SN 12.2, SN 23.2, SN 5.10, MN 98, MN 86 & elsewhere. For example, a set of aggregates that manifests itself by wearing a uniform, using a gun & acting to kill enemies is conceptually called a "soldier", or more often these days, "a terrorist". Or a woman that uses her womb & breasts to bear & feed children is called "a mother".
Therefore, when Iti 112 refers to "devas, māras, and brahmās, with its recluses and brahmins, among humankind with its princes and people", this refers to the categories of categorized beings based on the activities (kamma) of these various sets of five aggregates. In other words, the Buddha understands the kamma of individual life forms. This is one meaning of "knower of the world".
In addition, because all of the above "beings" are "mentally born" from their own ignorance & craving, the Buddha knows each of these beings born of self-view will suffer because of their attachment & self-view. This is another meaning of "knower of the world", namely, knowing how suffering arises & how suffering ceases. In AN 4.45, similar to SN 12.44, the word "loka" or "world" is used synonymously with the word "dukkha"("suffering").

In short, "the world" refers to that which is low, mundane & ordinary. The Dhammapada says:

Follow not the vulgar way; live not in heedlessness; hold not false views; linger not long in worldly existence.

Come! Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it.

Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

Lokkavagga

Thus, a Pali word used about the higher teachings, such as the teachings about Emptiness , is "lokuttara", which means "beyond/transcending the world", as follows:

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that
are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning,
transcendent (lokuttara), connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will
lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these
teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train
yourselves.
SN 20.7

In summary, the Pali word "loka" or "world" does not necessarily refer to the physical world or physical universe, which some materialistic translators translate as "the cosmos". Yes, it is that embarrassing at times. As merely one example, in MN 79, the here-&-now meditation states called "jhana" are called "a world of exclusively pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa
)". Or, in MN 35.135, "heaven" & "hell" simply refer to agreeable & disagreeable sense experiences at the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind.

Since all of the above "worlds" are impermanent, the term "the world" also is used to refer to impermanence & decay, as follows. It follows this is another meaning of "knower of the world".

'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word
'world' apply?
"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what
disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate.
Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye
disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on
contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or
neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
SN 35.82.

To end, hopefully the above is sufficient although more can probably be written about the terms "loka" ("the world") and "lokavidu" ("knower of the world").


Is gender a result of Kamma? Are the genders male/female a result of Kamma, or is it associated with it in any way?

Karma is a very complicated process. We could in fact say that just about everything affects just about everything else - if a butterfly beats its wings in China, it does probably play some infinitesimal role in causing hurricanes in Florida. If, by karma, you mean any old action whatsoever, then indeed, there are probably certain actions (especially mental ones) that lead one to be reborn as one gender or the other.

Specifically, a man's obsession with women would most likely cause him to be reborn as a woman, and vice versa. This is most likely what happened in the stories we have that have been traditionally interpreted as suggesting that adultery leads to being born a woman. It is far more likely, in my mind, that male adultery with women leads to being born a woman, and female adultery with men leads to being born a man. The cause being the insane obsession.

This, of course, is not what is meant by karma and result in a Buddhist sense. Here the fact that one was born a woman or a man was not a "bad" or "good" result, it was just a case of obsession leading to realization of the object of obsession.  If one were insanely obsessed with cats, one would likely be born a cat.

If, by karma, you are referring to ethical acts, in the sense that, for example, being born gender A is the good result of certain good deeds and being born gender B is the evil result of certain evil deeds, it seems unlikely that one could infer that from the Buddha's teaching - itthindriya and purisindriya are just two of the many aspects of physical being; there is nothing intrinsically inferior or superior between the two, I don't think.

That being said, genders are hardly ever equal, physically or socially, in any species of being; in India at the time of the Buddha and when the commentaries were written, for example, being born a human female would have been a bad thing given their inferior social status, and thus could be taken indirectly as a sign of bad past karma. Too, the physiology of a human female is arguably (though not conclusively so) a cause of greater potential suffering than of its male counterpart, forcing one to deal with menstrual cycles, pregnancy, etc., as well as generally inferior strength.

Of course, this need not always be true; nor does it imply that the female faculty itself is inferior to the male faculty, or brought about by bad karma in all cases. Several species of mammal exhibit characteristics of female domination; the human species itself seems to be heading closer to a level of equality between the genders. Thus, it seems erroneous to suggest that one gender is an intrinsic result of good karma and another the intrinsic result of bad karma.

To be perfectly clear, in the abhidhamma, karma refers to one's mental volition or motivation, and the result is always expressed in terms of experience - good karma results in good experience, bad karma results in bad experience (viz. of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking). For gender to play any intrinsic role in bringing about the result of good or bad karma, it would have to intrinsically be the cause of specific pleasant or unpleasant experiences. Again, any such relationship seems more related to the evolution of certain species and cultures than the intrinsic nature of the genders.

Finally, the whole concept of karma is suspect; an arahant performs no karma, good or evil, and doesn't see any experience as either pleasant or unpleasant. In ultimate reality, whether certain experiences are "good" or "bad" seems largely subjective, and any volition or motivation that leads one to be reborn as either a male or a female of any species is definitely "bad" or "wrong" in an ultimate sense.

There are numerous places in Buddhist literature where it is stated that women cannot achieve enlightenment. I won't catalog these, or evaluate them either. They are mostly based on social norm, conjecture, and opinion, no matter how they are worded.

From Wikipedia: "Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/; Sanskrit: कर्म, translit. karma, IPA: [ˈkɐɽmɐ]; Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed; it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect). Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths."

In the first definition of the word karma (simply action), yes, gender is determined by some kind of action in the field of manifestation. But in the second definition, that individual action in the past determines gender in the past I have never seen this convincingly argued. And in the final sense, that good or bad past karma determines a good outcome (male) or a bad outcome (female) there is no support for this in Buddha teaching.  Everything is a result of some kind of karma, somewhere. Even being on the Path, this is karma from skillfulness in your past and the generosity of teachers and sangha past. Everything, including gender, is a result of action, but only in the broadest possible sense. Karma is basically unfathomable to the human mind. We (meaning you and I) do not possess omniscience.

If your question had been "do females have Buddha Nature?" I would answer yes, they do. As do males, and as do all sentient beings. And I support the women who journey forth and seek Enlightenment.


Wholesome is absence of passion? A person told here, that wholesome (kusala) means absence of passion (desire, will..., raga, lobha, chanda...).

Is that right? If, why. Is it wrong? If, why?

No need to have passion to answer the question, of cause.

(note: this is not for entertaining, trade, exchange or stacks that binds, but to get attached to liberation and for a leave.)

The way I understand, any action which benefits you and the other person or both are wholesome.

I'm answering the question based on No need to have passion to answer the question, of cause. comment in the question. I might not have references to what I say in english, as the english Sutta are lacking some suttas. I'll try to point to the suttas anyway.

  A person told here, that wholesome (kusala) means absence of passion
  (desire, will..., raga, lobha, chanda...).

.

  Is that right?

Yes, This is correct, but instead of raga, lobha, chanda we can conclude everything to Thrushna = Thanha = Craving And it can be again divided to Ragha, Dwesha, Moha.
When you are uprooting these, it will become Kusala as its the only thing which helps to achieve Nivana = Enlightenment

  If why?

How Nivana = Enlightenment is defined in Samyutta Nikaya - 4 -> Asankatha Sutta is: Not making the mind dirty with Ragha, Not making the mind dirty with Dwesha, Not making the mind dirty with Moha is Nivana = Enlightenment How its written in Pali is Raghakkhayoo Nibbanan, Dweshakkhayo Nibbanan, Mohakkayo Nibbanan.
So when there's Ragha, Dwesha, Moha occurs in our mind, it cause us to lose the Kusala.
Next If we look at why Ragha, Dwesha, Moha occurs in our mind? That's because of the Avijja = Ignorance And that remains bit hard to explain, as I can't give reference as the English translation is missing some sutta.

If I explains simply what we ignore about the world is, we think the world is worth, (car is worth, children are worth etc.) and we get attached to those. Actually there's no worth in external world. But thinking that out side world is worth we create our own world (five aggregates of clinging) and get attached to that.

Next why we think the outside world is worth? It's because with think the external world gives us happiness that's why we think it's worth. But actually external world behaves as the way its supposed to be (according to the Pratītyasamutpāda). But we get cheated thinking the external world is behaving the we want and get attached to that. (eg: when someone has car he thinks the car is worth and it behaves as he wants it, actually its not because he wants it, but it's how it supposed to happened according to the law of nature = Pratītyasamutpāda. Not knowing this behaviour is called Avijja)

Please don't just ignore this. This is the base of the Buddha's teaching. And it's not the way it's written, but its the way someone feels and understand it. (eg: addition of 1 + 1 = 2, is very proven to everyone, no matter the language, no matter Einstein says we know that is it, because we've realised it and proven to our selves. If someone asks us to believe that 1+1 is not 2 but 3, then it's not gonna happen, as we've clearly understand 1+1 = 2. Like wise, Aijja is as explained above. When you realise it, no matter what, you know it and understand it and you see that in the world : day-to-day action )

With Metta..!


Did Buddha told anything about if we can travel to the end of the cosmos? Did the Buddha tell us anything about reaching the end of the cosmos or time-travel through the means of experiencing all the Jhanas in meditation?

We know of no sutra directly bearing on the subject of time travel, although space travel to the akasha deva loka ("space world of shining ones") is frequently met with in both directions, Sakka to Earth and the Buddha and monastics to many "celestial" worlds [like the Buddha, Maha Moggallana, and other disciples going into near Earth orbit and battling a reptilian or naga named Nandopananda). But there is one oddity we never stop pointing out:

During WW II the Germans developed a time travel "bell" (Die Glocke), which just happens to look exactly like the strange hollow stupas, reliquary mounds or "bells" housing Buddha figures at the largest Buddhist site in the world -- Borobudur, Central Java, Indonesia -- with its massive, pyramid-like platforms. The structure is the size of a mountain in what is now an Islamic.

So marvelous and inexplicable to the Muslims was this site that they tried to destroy it but could not. Nor could they build anything to rival it; they simply did not have the technology. Instead, they buried it in a massive pile of mud. More than a century later, when the British archeologists were surveying the site, one realized that there was no way there could be a "mountain" there. He had his workers dig, and he is credited with rediscovering a Buddhist temple complex larger than the massive pieces in Bamiyan, Afghanistan (although the unexcavated Mes Aynak site may rival Borobudur, but if Chinese mining interests have their way, it will be destroyed first) and Angkor Wat, Cambodia.

The Germans were given off-planet instructions on how to construct a transporter, which they dubbed "The Bell" (Die Glocke), and tested it. They sent it into the future and retrieved, weather beaten a short time later. What else they did is kept top secret by the OSI, CIA, NASA, and other American organizations which inherited and protected German scientists after the war, such as Robert Oppenheimer and Nazi Wernher von Braun.

[Edited]. In Buddhism philosophy there is also Kalachakra Mandala which also look like Borobudur Temple.

Meaning of Kalachakra Mandala : The word kalachakra means cycles of time, and the Kalachakra system presents three such cycles – external, internal and alternative. The external and internal cycles deal with time as we normally know it, while the alternative cycles are practices for gaining liberation from these two.
What is the Kalachakra?.

Many articles are there explained about Kalachakra Manadala.
There also explained about cosmos and about five strings of attachments.

[Edited].

  Once the Blessed One [the Buddha, who was known as the Teacher of Devas and Humans] was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, at Anathapindika's monastery. Then the male deva Rohitassa, late at night, with his splendid radiance lighting up the entire grove, went to the Blessed One, bowed, respectfully stood to one side, and asked:

    "Venerable sir, is it possible by traveling to know or see or reach the far end of the universe where one does not undergo rebirth, aging, dying, passing away, or reappearing?"

    "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach the far end of the universe where one does not undergo rebirth, aging, dying, passing away, or reappearing."

    "It is amazing, venerable sir, it is awe-inspiring, how well this has been said by the Blessed One! ...Once I was a seer (Indian rishi, yogi) named Rohitassa, a disciple of [the Guru] Bhoja, a powerful sky-walker. My speed was as fast as that of a strong archer -- well-trained, a practiced hand, a practiced sharp-shooter -- shooting a light arrow across the shadow of a palm tree. [This is a common idiom to illustrate extreme speed in ancient India, the time it would take a shot arrow to pass the shadow of a tree.] My stride stretched as far as the East Sea is from the West [the width of India]. To me, endowed with such speed, such a stride, there arose the desire: 'I will go traveling to the end of the universe.'

    "I with a 100 year life, a 100 year span spent 100 years traveling. And apart from the time spent eating, drinking, savoring, urinating, defecating, and sleeping to ward off weariness. But without reaching the end of the universe, I died along the way. So it is amazing, venerable sir, it is awesome, how well this has been said by the Blessed One!"

  [The Buddha replied:]

    "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach the far end of the universe... But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of disappointment and suffering without reaching the end of the universe (world).
    It is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception and intellect, that I declare that:

    There is the universe (world),
    The origination of the universe,
    The cessation of the universe, and
    The path of practice leading to the cessation of the universe." [This is another wording of the ennobling Four Noble Truths.]

    "It is not to be reached by traveling [in space]. AND it is not without reaching the end of the universe that there is release from disappointment and suffering.

    "So truly the wise one, an expert with regard to the cosmos, a knower of the end of the cosmos, having fulfilled the holy life, calmed, knowing the cosmos' end, doesn't long for this cosmos or for any other."

  (See also AN 9.38).

So even if they found that Die Glocke were look like Borobudur temple.
Buddha said all about it is cosmos.

  "These five strings of sensuality are, in the discipline of the noble ones, called the cosmos.

  Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear... aromas cognizable via the nose... flavors cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These are the five strings of sensuality that, in the discipline of the noble ones, are called the cosmos. AN 9.38

He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes
  many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He
  goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through
  space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on
  water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he
  flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches &
  strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises
  influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.

  MN 119


What does venerable Sariputta mean by "dwelling withdrawn"? In Bhikkhu Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words", venerable Sariputta gives a discourse on "The Conditions for Wisdom", which contains eight causes and conditions for obtaining wisdom. He says,

  Having learned the Dhamma, he dwells withdrawn by way of two kinds of withdrawal: withdrawal of body and withdrawal of mind. This is the third cause and condition for obtaining the wisdom fundamental to the spiritual life.... (AN 8:2, abridged; IV 151-155) pg. 322

What does it mean to be withdrawn in these two ways?

Thank you

Piya Tan's comment for AN 8.2:

The third factor that conduces to developing wisdom in an individual is aloneness of body and of mind (kāya,vūpakāsa citta,vūpakāsa), that is, cultivating aloneness of both the body and the mind. The word vūpakāsa (“estrangement, alienation, separation, seclusion”) comes from the verb vūpakāseti (causative of vavakassati, “to be drawn away, to withdraw”). It is found in only as a suffix (in fine compositi) to these two compounds: kāya,vūpakāsa and citta,vūpakāsa.10 These two terms also appear in the (Bojjhaṅga) Sīla Sutta (S 46.3), which should be studied with this Sutta.11
“Aloneness” is not “loneliness” (where we miss someone or something familiar). Here, aloneness is where we leave behind the world we were familiar with to face ourself so that we dedicate ourself fully to the spiritual life. It means being undistracted by the world and worldliness, and to commit all our body and heart to our training.

This quote is only the first subsection: see the PDF (pages 145 through 147) for further explanation (which describes bodily solitude, mental solitude, and spiritual solitude).

Withdrawn here means "giving up", "surrender", "renounce".

He dwells withdrawn means that he lived a renounced live and this has the benefit of gaining wisdom.

Withdrawal of body and withdrawal of mind refers to precepts relating to the body and precepts relating to the mind.


Saying May God Bless you Recently I encounter a situation where one of my close people and I went see a patient. While  we were about to leave the place, my close person said May God Bless you. Me and my close person are both Buddhist. I asked why didn't you say May the triple gem bless you. And close person replied saying since they Christians I said God bless you. But I also observed that the patients people said May God bless you.

Does saying May God bless you comes under a wrong view or wrong speech or etc or is it okay to tell? I'm just curious to know since my close person is also a Buddhist"

Just think of the flip side of it @Akila… If the patient is a devout Buddhist.. still almost all  will say "may god bless you" at the time of leaving. Will they ever say "Namo Buddhaya" when arriving, or at the time of leaving? I doubt it. It is because very few know that we Buddhists say 'Namo Buddhaya' whenever we meet or depart. At the time when the Supreme Buddha was alive, it was the practice observed by His disciples to place both hands together in a gesture of worship and greet each other by saying ‘Namo Buddhaya’, whenever they met. Today, whenever Hindus meet one-another, they too bring their hands together and say ‘Namo Narayana’ or ‘Oh Namah Shivaya’. Some say ‘Namo Sairam’ when they enter the ashram of Sai Baba.

But in a way it is OK to say “may god bless you" as the point of the Buddhist teachings isn't to reinforce the identity of "I am a Buddhist and this is what I believe." It's to cultivate compassion and loving kindness and purify anger and aversion from your life. Then your focus would be on "How can I compassionately reply to these people in a way that feels authentic to me?"  You need to be able to connect with the human being in front of you, and look past beliefs and value systems and connect with their humanity.

So focus less on yourself and focus more on the other. What words can you say to bring this being happiness and reduce his/her suffering? Intention is the most important factor and can often supersede other factors. If you feel that by replying "God bless you," (which is personally my own response), this person might experience a sense of comfort, ease, and happiness that would not be experienced otherwise, then there is nothing wrong in saying it.

In my opinion, saying "May God bless you" is a very Buddhist thing to do.

According to the Buddha in Mettanisamsa Sutta, there are 11 benefits that would be experienced by one who practises loving kindness or metta, as follows:

  "1. He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human
  beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire, poison, and sword cannot
  touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His countenance is
  serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to
  attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-world."

Note that No. 6 states that the devas (which could be translated as gods) would protect one who practises metta.

Hence, saying "May God bless you" is indeed Buddhist, because it is supported by the words of the Buddha.

Of course, the Buddhist should keep to himself the view that the God(s) are not permanent (anicca). If one has the view that God is permanent and eternal, then that would be a wrong view, from a Buddhist perspective.


What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana? What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?

Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya Bhava)?

And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana?

I read the topic Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'? but that does not answer my question -- I want answers which specifically discuss this in line with three categories of Tanha with Upadana in Dependent Origination.

Please give me a practical answer than a technical answer which are found in many places.

Here is an answer that is based on my study and meditation. It is not citing any official sources and trying to stay away from technical explanation in favor of real-life examples.

-- What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?

To use a traditional example. Say you met a very nice person. Let's say that person had a beautiful smile and sweet soft voice. Next day, you suddenly get a flash of that person's smile in your mind, and you "hear" the sound of voice playing in your head, all this accompanied with a desire to see that person again. That's tanha. You also feel a somewhat painful sensation in your chest because you're missing that person. That's dukkha.

Then, on the basis of that flash, you start obsessively thinking about the smile, the voice, the hair, the body, the manner of walking - you begin inwardly attending to as many features of the person as you can remember. You also start thinking about the place you met the person yesterday, hoping that if you go there again, there is a chance you will see him or her again. That's upadana.

-- Upadana Paccaya Bhava

The way it works, in my understanding, is like this: the moment you start thinking about going to that location to meet that person, you start thinking about future. In that imaginary future, there is you ("I") that you imagine will experience the pleasant moment of seeing the pretty person again. When you do that you create a sense of identity that spans a period of time from a point in the past to a point in the future. It's like you subconsciously say to yourself: "First I was here, without that person", "Then I will do A,B,C according to my plan", "Then I will be there - with that person", "Then I will enjoy". This personal ego-centric goal-making, projecting, and planning (in my opinion) is what causes Bhava - "becoming" or "individuating" or "identifying".

-- there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana?

Same way as in the above. In case of kama-upadana you keep thinking about pleasant sensations, your thinking and action is permeated by craving to a pleasant sensation - that's kama-upadana. For example you keep getting a flash of kissing the person (tanha) and you start fantasizing about the circumstances under which you two would be kissing (upadana).

In case of bhava-upadana you keep obsessing about being in a certain position, living in a certain way, having something in your possession. Your thinking and action is permeated by craving to attain something. For example, you keep fantasizing about having married the person and how you two would be living together, what that would look like.

In case of vibhava-upadana you keep obsessing about something in your life now that you want to get rid of. Your thinking and action is permeated by craving to get rid of something. For example, you keep thinking about your extra weight, how bad it makes you look, and how much nicer it would be to get rid of it.

What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?

Tanha is the craving of once mind towards worldly things,due to that craving a bond's born towards those worldly things,that bond's called ''upadana''..

  Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya
  Bhava)?

As i said above due to Tanha it makes upadana or bonds,When it has bonds being go life to life continuously that calls Bhava, being get birth life to life due to Bhava..

  And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava):
  please explain how these three link to Upadana?

Kama tanha - this makes due to craving on five senses
Bhawa tanha -this is the craving to go life by life through ''sansara'' and get confort
Vibhawa tanha - craving to get confort  thinking ''there is no life or birth after this life''

Bonds make in mind due to these thrice are the upadana make by them as described above


Is Physical Attraction or Appreciation of the Human Form Considered Attachment? Naturally as humans we feel many forms of attraction to other humans, but I am curious to know:

Is attraction (or more so, a mere appreciation of the human form) considered a form of desire and, by extension, attachment to be consciously avoided?

What you say "attachment", I think that the Pali word for 'attachment' is Upādāna:

  In Buddhism, upādāna is a critical link in the arising of suffering.

When it says "link", there, it means that it is, "part of the causal chain of suffering",

  In the twelve-linked chain of Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda, also see Twelve Nidanas), clinging (upādāna) is the ninth causal link:

  Upādāna (Clinging) is dependent on Tṛṣṇā (Craving) as a condition before it can exist.
  "With Craving as condition, Clinging arises".

That Wikipedia article (as well as other references, like this one) also says that there are different types of attachment:

  In the Sutta Pitaka, the Buddha states that there are four types of clinging:

  sense-pleasure clinging (kamupadana)
  wrong-view clinging (ditthupadana)
  rites-and-rituals clinging (silabbatupadana)
  self-doctrine clinging (attavadupadana).

Perhaps you can see how "physical attraction" might be related to all four types of clinging; for example:

"That person looks and feels and smells and sounds pleasurable, I enjoy perceiving them" (sense pleasure)
"I'll love that person forever" alternatively "It's just a one-night stand with no consequences" (wrong view e.g. eternalism or nihilism)
The "dating game" and "marriage" as a source of happiness (rites and rituals)
"I am attractive or unattractive, because I do or don't have a romantic partner" (self-doctrine)

The Upadana Sutta says,

  In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

  Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

I think that the first paragraph is saying that attachment arises as a result of a process like the following:

"That person is physically attractive" (is focus on the allure of clingable phenomena)
"I enjoy the attraction, I like being attracted" followed by "That enjoyment/attraction has vanished, I wish it would reoccur" (is craving)
"I want that person, because they're attractive" (is attachment)

Conversely the second paragraph is recommending a process like the following:

"Sensual pleasures are impermanent and cannot be satisfactory (focus on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena ... not only sensual pleasures but the other types of clinging too)
"Seeing their drawbacks therefore I don't actually find them very attractive" (craving ceases)
I'm not attracted so I don't become attached (no attachment so the cycle doesn't continue).

There are mental exercises purposely designed to make the body seem unattractive (e.g. imagine it as a corpse, as a skeleton, etc.).

I think there are also other ways to approach the problem. One way might be via self-doctrine, for example, if you have the thought, "I want that person, because they're attractive" then you might think ... "Wait, it's not that 'they are attractive' it's that 'I perceive them as, I consider them, I find them to be, attractive. However 'I' am impermanent, the 'I' is just a reification of impermanent senses, and so that (i.e. 'my' view, that they are attractive) is impermanent and not something to 'attach myself' to."

In Thundering Silence: Sutra on Knowing the Better Way to Catch a Snake
 by Thich Nhat Hanh, he writes,

  Many people think that to undergo spiritual discipline is to practice asceticism and austerities. But to others, the practice of the Dharma does not exclude the enjoyment of the fresh air, the setting sun, a glass of cool water, and so on. Enjoying things in moderation does not bring us suffering or tie us with the bonds of attachment. Once we recognize that all of these things are impermanent, we have no problem enjoying them. In fact, real peace and joy are only possible when we see clearly into the nature of impermanence.

It then mentions times in the suttas where the Buddha expressed appreciation for a good meal, or commented on the beauty of a landscape.

Thich Nhat Hanh is a Zen Buddhist monk.

I think he's saying that perceiving a sense-pleasure as unpleasurable isn't the only way to avoid craving and attachment: that you may be able to avoid attachment by enjoying such things in moderation and remaining mindful of impermanence.

Beware though that doctrine may warn there's a difference between food and sex (if "sex" is what you mean by "physical attraction and appreciation of the human form") -- e.g. the Bhikkhuni Sutta,

  This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.

  This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.

  This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.

  This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.

Buddhist monks (at least, if not lay people) are celibate.

Appreciation or physically attraction per se are not attachments.

For example, appreciation of Dharma is not attachment.
Another example, like being attracted to a beautifully crafted Buddha statue is not attachment.

Only when it is accompanied by greed and ignorance and hatred that it become attachment.

Since attachment causes us to lose wisdom, it should be avoided if we wish to gain wisdom.


What is musavada in the five precepts? What is musāvādā in the five precepts?
On this five precepts page, it is translated as "incorrect speech", presumably by Ven. Thanissaro.
On this DN 27 page, Ven. Sujato translated it as "false speech".
In Iti 25, Ven. Thanissaro instead translated it as lying.
From SN 45.8, we read the definition of right speech as follows:

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech,
from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

So what exactly is musāvādā in the five precepts?
Does it refer to only lying or untruthful speech?
Or is it considered "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, that includes lying, divisive speech and abusive speech?
If musāvādā is not "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, then what is the correct Pali term for the opposite of Right Speech?
Please provide references to suttas if available.

So far as I know it's defined -- defined by example -- in AN 10.176

(Impurity in speech)
And how, Cunda, does one become impure in vācā in four ways? Here, Cunda, one is musāvādī. When he has been brought to the meeting hall, in front of an assembly, among his relatives, his guild, in the midst of the royal court, on being asked as a witness: 'come, my good man, what you know, tell us', if he doesn't know, he says: 'I know', if he knows, he says: 'I don't know', if he has not seen, he says: 'I have seen', if he has seen, he says: 'I have not seen'. Thus, for his own sake, or for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of some trifle gain, he is one who deliberately{2} speaks falsely.
One is pisuṇavāco, he is one who tells there what he has heard here, as a consequence of which [there is] disunion, who tells here what he has heard there, as a consequence of which [there is] disunion. Thus dividing those who are in unity and further dividing those who are disunited,{3} delighting in dissension, devoted to dissension, gladdening in dissension, he is one who speaks a vācā that creates dissension.
One is pharusavāco, he is one who speaks such a vācā which is rough, hard, bitter to others, abusive to others, connected with anger, and conducive to non-samādhi.
One is samphappalāpī, he is one who speaks at the wrong time, who speaks of what is not actual,{4} who speaks unprofitable words, who speaks of what is contrary to the Dhamma, of what is contrary to the Vinaya; he is one who speaks words which are not worth treasuring, at the wrong time, that which is nt reasonable, not moderate, or words which are related to what is not profitable.
These, Cunda, are the four ways in which one becomes impure in vācā.

So "Musa" is one of four types of wrong speech -- false speech is wrong speech, plus there are other types of wrong speech (e.g. divisive gossip) that's wrong even though it isn't false.
The footnote for "deliberately" there says,

deliberately: sampajāna - here the word has a wordly meaning. Its other meaning, spiritual, is of fundamental importance in the Buddha's teaching.

The presence of the word sampajāna, in that context, might imply that speech isn't false unless it's deliberate -- or that false speech isn't impure unless it's deliberate -- I'm not sure which. Taking it literally it's even more specific:

Thus, for his own sake, or for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of some trifle gain, he is one who deliberately{2} speaks falsely.

... i.e. it's done for some kind of "gain" and maybe even in a court. So maybe more specifically equivalent to "bearing false witness against a neighbour".
I'm still not certain which is implied by DN 27:

Is that implying that brahmins are lying deliberately?
Or that bad karma can be made by other forms of false speech?

I'd have guessed that the speech is divisive and rooted in conceit, but what do I know ... perhaps (as implied) it was seen as rooted in some intentional deception for profit.
There's another word mentioned later ...

what is not actual: a-bhūta-vādī - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates 'what is not factual', and Bhikkhu Bodhi: 'what is not fact'.

... in the fourth general category i.e. of useless and unprofitable. Maybe that's more specifically "non-factual".

Piya Tan wrote:

The fourth precept is against falsehood, against communicating what is untrue, harsh, disharmonious and useless. This is again something natural: if there is no truth, then it is no use of my writing about all this. You would have wasted your time reading this! Truth is the very basis of wholesome human communication.

So possibly musāvādā -- false speech, one type of wrong speech -- is sometimes also used to refer to wrong speech in general, any or all of the four types.

I expect that the Pali word for wrong (by which I mean, the opposite of Right, or sammā) is probably micchā -- see micchādiṭṭhi.

And what is right speech?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammāvācā?
Avoiding speech that’s false, divisive, harsh or nonsensical.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, musāvādā veramaṇī, pisuṇāya vācāya veramaṇī, pharusāya vācāya veramaṇī, samphappalāpā veramaṇī—
This is called right speech.
ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, sammāvācā.

If refraining from "nonsensical speech" was contrary to the five precepts, the content on Buddhist Stack Exchange would be very limited.


What advice should i give for a person with self destructive thoughts? If someone is really depressed and having self destructive thoughts and behavior what can i do to help such a person?

Is there a good meditation for such a one?

What kind of advice will it be best for a such a one?

Metta meditation can help as it subdues hatred which is a major cause for suicide.
Other Samatha meditations like Anapanasati can help to attain extremely pleasant states of the mind like the Jhanas where there's no depression.
Vipassana can be practiced to make one not react to unpleasant feelings or thoughts and eventually achieve lasting peace.

Let him know that by forfeiting early by self disqualification he will reincarnate again in this realm but have a even harder life.To end his suffering he must endure to the end by helping others get through their trials by being a positive force not a negative force, if we all stay positive the ride will go smooth and the next life and realm will be a precious experience.

I myself choose to stay back in the lower harder realms where much suffering and hardship is experienced,helping the weak get through is worth reliving the agony over and over again.


Because of which element the world has come together? The world seems to have come together. We have United Nations which is a symbol of the unity of the nations.However things come together because of an element.  That element can be greed or aversion or delusion or education or faith or love or anger... etc...
Therefore I would like to ask : Because of which element the world has come together?

The element you are searching for is Mahakaruna (Great Responsiveness):

The final attribute of emptiness to be mentioned is a quality peculiar to the Buddhist analysis: responsiveness. It is the third and final denominator in the list of categories or aspects by which emptiness can be defined: essence, nature, responsiveness. It appears anomalous, an attribute rather than a category. The third logical category is function, or manifest function, and the attribute found in its stead is responsiveness and its qualifier is all-pervasive. Viewed as a functional attribute of inner space, total presence, and light, the implication is that the dynamic, the intentionality, the purpose of being is compassion, which is a synonym of responsiveness and demonstrable as the responsive aspect of love. It is this compassion that is coextensive with space, the buddha-heart pervading all beings. Viewed as the potential form or manifestation of emptiness, the implication appears to be that every vibration of body, speech, and mind is a form of compassionate energy, nothing excluded. Consider the distinction between responsiveness and compassion. In Dzogchen, compassion is much more than the virtue of loving-kindness. Nor does the word compassion in the Dzogchen context denote its English etymological meaning, “suffering together” or “empathy,” although both these meanings may be inferred. Essentially, compassion indicates an open and receptive mind responding spontaneously to the exigencies of an ever-changing field of vibration to sustain the optimal awareness that serves self-and-others’ ultimate desire for liberation and well-being. The conventional meaning of compassion denotes the latter, active part of this definition, and, due to the accretions of Christian connotation in the West, response is limited to specifically virtuous activity. Responsiveness defines the origin and cause of selfless activity that can encompass all manner of response. On this nondual Dzogchen path, virtue is the effect, not the cause; the ultimate compassionate response is whatever action optimizes presence — loving-kindness is the automatic function of primal awareness.

Excerpt From: “The Flight of the Garuda,” by Keith Dowman, Wisdom Publications, 2003, pgs 37-38
Mahakaruna is realized through Great Responsiveness Meditation—the practice of Avalokitasvara. See: “Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö’s Prophecy of Things to Come” https://medium.com/p/c9e6e2c54f23


Is Buddhist practice a form of suicide? I don't presume to understand Buddhism very well, but I'm trying to increase my understanding of the Dhamma, so please don't take what I write the wrong way. I'm not being disrespectful, because even the Buddha praised Sariputta for his unwillingness to accept teachings on faith alone, but rather from his own personal experience and understanding.

I sometimes feel like Buddhist practice is a slow form of suicide. Gradually, all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately abandoned and renounced. Nibbana is considered to be the ultimate freedom and highest happiness because it ends all suffering by extinguishing the mind from all forms of existence forever. This is denied as being annihilation because its argued that since there was never a true self to begin with, there was nothing to be annihilated. Nevertheless, we still experience a subjective experience of a self, otherwise, there would be no point in practicing the Eightfold Path.

Because only a deluded (unenlightened) mind could have any motivation to extinguish itself, craving Nibbana seems very much like a strong aversion to existence. Anyone who tries to logically extrapolate this to justify suicide as a means to accomplish the same result is denied because its argued that a desire for annihilation (via suicide) creates more bad karma which causes rebirth. Yet, desiring annihilation via the Eightfold Path is somehow exempt from this. If someone wants to remain in Samsara forever, it's very easy to do, no effort is required. But if someone craves to permanently self-destruct via Nibbana, they must be highly motivated and diligent in their efforts, perhaps spanning many lifetimes. Some people even abandon all worldly life to become monastics to accomplish this in the fastest and most direct manner possible. Thus, it seems that to remain in Samsara requires much less desire and effort than to seek one's own annihilation via the Eightfold Path.

Again, I realize people will argue that you can't annihilate what doesn't truly exist, but this existence which all sentient beings experience as subjective reality is all a deluded mind can ever know, so seeking to extinguish that reality seems like a desire for non-existence which is supposed to create more bad karma and rebirth. I honestly struggle to follow the logic of this.

I don't presume to understand Buddhism very well

The above self-awareness is wise.

  I sometimes feel like Buddhist practice is a slow form of suicide.

Its not. 'Dhamma' means that which 'supports' life therefore dhamma cannot be suicide.

  Gradually, all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately abandoned and renounced.

Yes. Buddhism says to attain the higher pleasures of jhana & Nibbana, worldly pleasures must be abandoned.

  Nibbana is considered to be the ultimate freedom and highest happiness because it ends all suffering by extinguishing the mind from all forms of existence forever.

No. Nibbana is the here-&-now freedom from the disturbing emotions of greed, hatred & delusion. As for the word "existence" ("bhava"), it means "ego-existence", which is the root of suffering.

  This is denied as being annihilation because its argued that since there was never a true self to begin with, there was nothing to be annihilated.

Actually, the Buddha did say in one sutta he annihilates greed, hatred & self-delusion. But this does not involve suicide.

  Nevertheless, we still experience a subjective experience of a self, otherwise, there would be no point in practicing the Eightfold Path.

It is the mind that suffers (when it ignorantly creates self-view) rather than a self that suffers. The end of suffering in Buddhism is called freedom of mind (ceto-vimutti) rather than freedom of self.

  Because only a deluded (unenlightened) mind could have any motivation to extinguish itself

Nibbana is not the extinguishing of mind. Nibbana is the extinguishing of greed, hatred & delusion.

  Nibbana seems very much like a strong aversion to existence.

No.

  Anyone who tries to logically extrapolate this to justify suicide as a means to accomplish the same result is denied because its argued that a desire for annihilation (via suicide) creates more bad karma which causes rebirth.

Nibbana has no correlation to suicide. Nibbana is the freedom from the pain that motivates suicide.

  Yet, desiring annihilation via the Eightfold Path is somehow exempt from this.

The idea that Nibbana is ending of mind is wrong understanding of Buddhism.

  If someone wants to remain in Samsara forever, it's very easy to do, no effort is required.

Samsara means the continuous attaching to things as self. Refer to SN 22.99.

  But if someone craves to permanently self-destruct via Nibbana

Craving does not bring Nibbana. Nibbana is found by ending craving.

  they must be highly motivated and diligent in their efforts, perhaps spanning many lifetimes.

There is no evidence for many lifetimes. Such ideas are only found in a certain genre of texts and also later texts.

  Thus, it seems that to remain in Samsara requires much less desire and effort than to seek one's own annihilation via the Eightfold Path.

Eightfold Path does not lead to annihilation of life. Only the annihilation of suffering.

  existence

Existence (bhava) is an idea; the idea or thought "I exist". It does not mean the existence of the mind & body.

  which all sentient beings

The Buddha never used the term "sentient beings". The Buddha taught "beings" are views or ideas born from strong attachment (refer to SN 23.2; SN 5.10).

  experience as subjective reality is all a deluded mind can ever know, so seeking to extinguish that reality seems like a desire for non-existence which is supposed to create more bad karma and rebirth.

Suicide is an action born from pain & confusion. Suicide means the mind has not found peace from practising the Noble Eightfold Path. This is why suicide is regarded as bad karma because, instead of performing suicide, a person can practise the Path.

  I honestly struggle to follow the logic of this.

This struggle exists because Buddhism has not been studied & learned accurately. Instead, your views about Buddhism, while very common, are the superstitions taught to children & village peasants. Since a Buddha is fully enlightened, obviously what a Buddha teaches cannot be illogical.

Generally suicide doesn't work to decrease the bottom line of expected suffering before releasing from it. Even an anagami is blamed if ending the life by suicide.

  “The Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sāriputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it.”https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sn35.87

In case of an arahant there is no blame if they hero because  having done their work they will be attaining parinibbana either way.

  Nibbana is considered to be the ultimate freedom and highest happiness because it ends all suffering by extinguishing the mind from all forms of existence forever.

Correct except mind is too extinguished because existence predicates existence of mind. This is direct sutta inference, it is almost the literal wording of the Sutta;

  These two Nibbana-elements were made known
  By the Seeing One, stable and unattached:
  One is the element seen here and now
  With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
  The other, having no residue for the future,
  Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.

  Having understood the unconditioned state,
  Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
  They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
  Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
  Those stable ones have abandoned all being.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044

*(From the same sutta meaning of the word 'being' therein is drawn out to be aggregates thus including mind/consciousness as they are proclaimed same in meaning)

  This is denied as being annihilation because its argued that since there was never a true self to begin with, there was nothing to be annihilated.

Isn't denied as it is the Sutta.
Mind is extinguished; the aggregates do breakup and existence of anything not associated can not be established.. That which is called mind, consciousness and intellect is impermanent and becomes extinguished fully with no residue for new beginnings.

  Nevertheless, we still experience a subjective experience of a self, otherwise, there would be no point in practicing the Eightfold Path.

sometimes there is a deliation of experience as thinking, thinking is about experience, how it works and if misuderstood there comes to be thinking of phenomena as self or personal. It is the default way to think.

  Thus, it seems that to remain in Samsara requires much less desire and effort than to seek one's own annihilation via the Eightfold Path.

To remain in samsara requires a potentially infinite amount of wrong effort and desires. It is as if a person in a hole jumping on hot coals would say ' it would take effort to grab a hold of the edge there and pull myself out -  were i to get a hold of the edge it would be burdensome. Therefore by avoiding the burden i shall live without  unburdened.'


Are there other things like life? In this text SN 56.46 Andhakara Sutta: Darkness, the Buddha seems to say, in my opinion, that life is much more stressful than black holes.

And I think life is an anomaly in this universe just like black holes, stars, time, quantum entanglement and such.

But are there any other things he has mentioned that are outlandish and we are unable to comprehend by using juxtapositions as always? Or did he just ignore them completely as they were not important?

Sorry if my question is not clear. I always have a hard time interpreting what's in my head to words.

Going off of what Dhammadhatu posted, the word used in the sutta, lokantarika, is not so much "life" but "this world and the other world". So black holes, quantum entanglement, every objectively measurable phenomenon (and many subjective phenomena as well) is included in that.
I'm not sure the term outlandish is appropriate, but I think I understand you to mean examples of metaphors involving vast numbers, powers, amount and the like. There are suttas where the Buddha says that all the salt-water in all the oceans is less than the tears we have cried throughout our wandering in Samsara as a way of illustrating the vast timescales. A similar sutta describes (I think) all the rivers in the world as holding less than the amount of blood spilled from our beheadings. And of course the turtle, living at the bottom of a great ocean, surfacing once a century, and a hoop floating on the top of that ocean being carried about by currents. It was said that the chances of encountering a Buddha and their dhamma was less than the chance of that turtle putting its head through the ring. So we are then fortunate to live in a time where we can hear that dhamma!
As for your last question, there were some questions that the Buddha strictly refused to answer based on their being irrelevant to the task of understanding and eliminating suffering. Those were: is the universe/world system eternal or not? Infinite or not? Does a Buddha exist after death? Not exist? Both? Neither? When asked these, the Buddha refused to answer as they were not relevant. Hope this helps!

SN 56.46  says:

  Mendicants, the boundless desolation of lokantarikā is so utterly dark that even the light of the moon and the sun, so mighty and
  powerful, makes no impression.”

  Atthi, bhikkhave, lokantarikā aghā asaṃvutā andhakārā andhakāratimisā, yatthamimesaṃ candimasūriyānaṃ evaṃmahiddhikānaṃ evaṃ
  mahānubhāvānaṃ ābhāya nānubhontī .

  Concise Pali English Dictionary

  lokantarika adjective situated between the worlds

The Pali suttas have the stock phrase: "This world & the other world". This seems to have different meanings (such as in MN 26, where the other world appears to refer to lower worlds). But, generally, in the Buddha's society, it meant the ordinary human world and the heavenly world of the Brahmins. Thus, in Buddhism, the 'other world' can be 'heaven' or meditation jhanas; where MN 79 refers to the meditation jhanas as "a world of exclusively pleasant feelings" (ekantasukhassa lokassa).

In other words, lokantarikā in SN 56.46 appears to refer to the 'world' between the world of ordinary worldly sensual life and the world of meditation happiness; what Christians mystics called "the dark night of the soul", which is a period of spiritual desolation suffered by a mystic in which all sense of consolation is removed.

For example, when a person suffers from sever psychological depression, the light of the moon and the sun makes no impression. Similarly, as occurred to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, nothing, not even ideas of Jesus or God, could help her in her spiritual desolation.

  Jesus has a very special love for you. [But] as for me--The silence and the emptiness is so great--that I look and do not see,--Listen and
  do not hear.

  Mother Teresa

In SN 56.46, the term 'lokantarikā' possibly refers to 'spiritual desolution' or what Christian meditators attempting to overcome the five hindrances called 'the dark night of the soul'.

If you have doubts about my answer, similar to a certain monk in DN 11 Kevatta  Sutta, you can ask about the meaning of the term 'lokantarikā' at Sutta Central.


Is there a scientific book summarizing the orthodox buddhism, the most ancient form of it? I found many personal book about Buddhism; witnessing; life story; spiritual encounter, experiences, meditation. I never found however a book that explain and summarize the classical Buddhism : a consensus clear that none Buddhist can read to understand that philosophy better.

Science is really the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is:

Observations

Hypotheses

Predictions

Experiments

Analysis

As a Zen Buddhist, specifically Vietnamese Engaged Buddhism here is what I see.

Most all of the studies (book, dharma talks, dharma sharing, sutra) have the elements listed above. A typical dharma talk (whether oral or written into a book) discusses observations. These observations lead to "insight" or a hypothesis/predictions about the true nature of reality/the mind/etc. Every dharma talk I have ever heard in zen has always asked us to take these insights and test them. Apply them in your life and see the outcome for yourself. I am not just told theories but asked to practice them. This is the Experiments phase. Then I am always asked to examine the practice to see the fruits of my effort. This is Analysis.

So basically I find that Zen Buddhism follows the scientific method quite perfectly. Thus I would say any Zen text could be considered a scientific text by the standards of the scientific method.

Now of course you are asking for a single book that "none Buddhist can read to understand that philosophy better". As a Zen Buddhist, this is pretty all-encompassing of Zen Buddhism: The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh. I read this book with non-buddhist weekly, as well as read this book with monastics. The approach in this book follows the methods I described above and is written in a way that is very approachable regardless of your skill level in the practice.

Here is the Table of Contents of the Book so you can see what is all covered.

Part One The Four Noble Truths

Chapter One Entering the Heart of the Buddha

Chapter Two The First Dharma Talk

Chapter Three The Four Noble Truths

Chapter Four Understanding the Buddha's Teachings

Chapter FiveIs Everything Suffering?

Chapter Six Stopping, Calming, Resting, Healing

Chapter Seven Touching Our Suffering

Chapter Eight Realizing Well-Being

Part Two The Noble Eightfold Path

Chapter Nine Right View

Chapter Ten Right Thinking

Chapter Eleven Right Mindfulness

Chapter Twelve Right Speech

Chapter Thirteen Right Action

Chapter Fourteen Right Diligence

Chapter Fifteen Right Concentration

Chapter Sixteen Right Livelihood

Part Three Other Basic Buddhist Teachings

Chapter Seventeen The Two Truths

Chapter Eighteen The Three Dharma Seals

Chapter Nineteen The Three Doors of Liberation

Chapter Twenty The Three Bodies of Buddha

Chapter Twenty-One The Three Jewels

Chapter Twenty-Two The Four Immeasurable Minds

Chapter Twenty-Three The Five Aggregates

Chapter Twenty-Four The Five Powers

Chapter Twenty-Five The Six Paramitas

Chapter Twenty-Six The Seven Factors ofAwakening

Chapter Twenty-Seven The Twelve Links of Interdependent Co-Arising

Chapter Twenty-Eight Touching the Buddha Within

Of course I am biased, but I would recommend this book: "Quantum Buddhism - Mahajrya Bodhana Sutra, Teachings on Awakening to the Great Field". It is written by Maha Vajra, who is the founder of the tradition I belong to. This book helped me immensely to understand some of the problems as well as some highly interesting correlations. Not necessarily correct or incorrect; merely interesting.

And before you jump to the idea that what he's talking about has been disproved, consider that what he's trying to talk about is an experience, not a proof. That point has caused a lot of trouble because it wasn't made incredibly clear.

Other than that, there are lots of books on Quantum Buddhism, and books that allow someone with a scientific background to understand what they're reading before diving into the up-to-2500-year-old texts. These other books will give you enough of a background to really understand what you're reading. But as I said, I'm biased in this case. :-)

For example in this book, using the holographic universe concept, it offers the idea that universal wisdom could be viewed as universally-pervasive quantum datum, repeated everywhere, at every time, and at various scales. Thus, nonlocal, atemporal, and scalar in nature (three terms that many Buddhists might actually be familiar with in English). We can learn to detach from the limitations of human perceptions of time and space, perceiving the higher wisdom (which is more refined than typical intellectual information) in a way which is more direct and with greater clarity, thus perceiving the quantum world for a moment or two at a time.

But there are also examples given of the double-slit electron experiment, simplifications of the Unified Quantum Field concept, and correlations to Buddhist texts (written both for Buddhists who want to understand quanta and scientists who want to understand Buddhism).

It then leads people through the basics of Quantum Buddhism, such as meditation, fixity, and other practices that help bring about this greater clarity and heightened perception.

Though I don't have a math background per se, a couple of my friends say that the simple equations in this book are philosophically deep and really get your mind going.


How does Nirvana fit into theory of evolution? Can nirvana be called as some sort of directed evolution? Can a Buddha or Arahat be considered as an evolved being as compared to the rest?

The scientific definition of evolution is as follows:

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

There is no guarantee that the offspring of a Buddha or Arahat will be an enlightened being, i.e. these characteristics are not guaranteed to be passed on to their successive generations (Not a very rigorous scientific answer but I hope you got the gist of it).
Another way to think about it is that

Has it been experimentally proved that Nirvana fits into the theory of evolution? OR, Can we design an experiment that can show if Nirvana fits into the theory of evolution?

As far as I know, these questions can not be answered as of now (Perhaps no one has tried to do it). So from a scientific point of view, I would say 'no'.

The internet says:

The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are
related and gradually change over time.
Evolution relies on there being genetic variation in a population
which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.
Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage
over other individuals which they can then pass on to their offspring.

Buddhism says a Buddha arises from "mere chance" (adhicca), as follows:

Bhikkhus, it is by chance that one obtains the human state; by chance
that a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Perfectly Enlightened One arises in
the world; by chance that the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the
Tathagata shines in the world. - SN 56.48

Therefore, it appears Nirvana does not fit into the theory of evolution because Nirvana or the disposition to reach Nirvana appears not related to ancestral genetics.


When is it love? When is it attachment? I have this misunderstanding about love and attachment as they relate to one another. It's hard to put in words, so I'll try with some examples first.

My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return. While love where you need or want something from the other person (like for example, expect that other person to make you happy, or you want to control the other person in some way, or try to change them to be more of how you would want them to be, etc) is actually attachment.

One example of true love I can think of is love for your children. You love them unconditionally. You understand they are their own person, with their own dreams, aspiration, thoughts, etc, so whatever they do, good or bad, you support them, help them, etc. You don't try to change them, or influence them, or impose your ideas on them, or have them accomplish the things you couldn't (e.g. I couldn't go to med school, but my child will), etc. No matter what happens, you love them because they are your children, and you love them no matter what they do.

Taking that further, even in the presence of death, I still can understand love (at least I think I do). Everyone dies. Your children might die. And even if you love them and will miss them if they are gone, or suffer after they are gone, that suffering doesn't linger. You continue to love your children even after they are gone (or at least the idea of them or the memory of them).

But here is another example. You love your partner. You think you love them like in the example above. But then they cheat on you with some other person. If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that... I think. If being with someone else makes them happy, you should be happy for them, right? But in most relationships, you expect from your partner that they don't cheat on you, or to behave in a certain way. When that expectation is broken, you suffer. Arguments start, resentment, maybe violence towards that person. Is this because of attachment to the person and not love? Because we expect them, and demand, that they behave in a way that doesn't hurt us or make us suffer, that we are attached to the idea that your partner is only ours to have?

So I guess, my question is this: What is love and what is attachment in a relation with your partner? What happens to love and attachment when they cheat with someone else? (for most of the people I know, death is less painful than being cheated upon; suffering caused by death eventually heals, but being cheated upon lingers for much longer).

Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?

When is it love?
There's Buddhist doctrine about the brahmaviharas which are three different kinds of love ...

I hope you're well
I don't want to hurt you
I rejoice in your virtue/success

... plus equanimity as the fourth.
If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that
In the old days before "no-fault divorce" people (in Anglophone countries) used to sue each other for adultery: and the alleged "damage" used to include Alienation of affections.
I think the theory was that if your partner was adulterous then you'd be receiving less affection from them -- an affection which should have been, as their spouse, rightfully yours.
And I think that contradicts your premise, i.e.

My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return.

I think another Buddhist theme is that, you do things because they (actions/intentions) are morally right or virtuous. Conversely you don't do things just because you feel like it (e.g. presumably shouldn't hurt people if or because you feel angry).
Because we expect them, and demand, that they behave in a way that doesn't hurt us or make us suffer, that we are attached to the idea that your partner is only yours to have?
I guess that -- expecting behaviour -- might work if you can form a contract, have a meeting of minds, with a sane and reliable partner.
Conversely some people (sometimes children) don't like conforming to other people's expectations.
With such a one, unreliable, a possible winning strategy might be (I don't know if this is applicable to you, feasible, or Buddhist -- but based on experience) if they ask e.g., "What do you expect me to do here?", reply, "I don't expect you to do anything. You can do..."
Then provide a safe environment, where they can't easily hurt themselves. And the necessities of life. And age-appropriate toys or tools. And good friends, some enjoyable group/social activities -- role models.
I think that behaviour/misbehaviour is partly conditioned/dependent -- if somebody is seeking some liberation then perhaps it's wise to ensure their environment is moral, safe, sane, unoppressive and with opportunities for them to be or to become good friends themselves.
Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?
I think so if you're semi-enlightened.
You suggested already that you can have children without their causing your suffering.
If I know children, they'll transgress in various ways, large or small -- and you're probably supposed to interact with them and correct their behaviour -- maybe without stopping-loving them though.
There's some doctrine here about choosing a spouse or partner, for what that's worth -- preferably one who is equal.
I think that a or the key to "not suffering" is to behave ethically. There's a sutta Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1) which begins ...

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"
"Joy has etc.

I equate that "freedom from remorse" with non-suffering -- "I do not regret it".
See for example Sīlānussati
In context I think that an example of sīlānussati might be Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) where the buddha seems to be happy.
In my experience that happiness might be in retrospect, i.e. good behaviour now leads to "joy" later.
See also What is the basis?

One important lesson that I’ve learned as a young Christian back then was to get the cultural context of these religions sprang up in. In fact, I was driven by the maddening impulse that the words of the New Testament weren’t enough, there was just too much that the Bible assumes you already know and much that can’t add in. Thankfully, my pastor was a real scholar.

I know Indians quite well, as I have grown up in a country where half the population consists of racial minorities.

Indians idolise material success. BMWs, Beverly Hills mansions, billion dollar IT firms and of course, fair skin. This is their religion that Hinduism tried so hard to break in order to save it from social chaos and destruction. It’s an unspoken truth that the Indians who have the almost as much success as the Indians with the best characters are also the ones who will murder the person who exposes their true colours.  Am I so much better as a Chinese? I too have idols to break every day. At least, unlike those Indians, I can break the idols of lies without a second thought.

The success of Hinduism resulted in a society that consists of people who seemed doomed to be of a certain class or sink to the bottom in their lifetime. Imagine being middle class; you cannot help but pull strings and make threats so that your children will have a brighter future or else their afterlives turn to vinegar. Always the rajahs are crushing you with their thumbs from above while your employees are always plotting the demise of your enterprises. Hence, an oversimplification of their suffering, their attachment.

The Buddha saw this and understood much. He told the crowds that attachment is suffering. Many disciples with questionable loyalties made the definition of attachment as general as possible, so that even feeding the neighbourhood orphan is also condemned attachment. The Buddha was powerless to stop the corruption of his doctrine because a part of what made his rebellion against social strife also made him pliable to stakeholders with loyalties towards false righteousness. Buddhism as we know it today has a multitude of embellishments by people who know how to paint false pictures.

It is okay to feel the love you feel. I say this as a man who has known the love of a blonde woman. This bond is not of the condemned, whatever the turncoats say. Turn it into a mighy oak of legacy. Be blessed.


What did Buddha mean by the words "tranquillising the bodily formation" in the Anapanasati Sutta? “Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty hut, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body erect, and established mindfulness in front of him, ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out.
“Breathing in long, he understands: ‘I breathe in long’; or breathing out long, he understands: ‘I breathe out long.’ Breathing in short, he understands: ‘I breathe in short’; or breathing out short, he understands: ‘I breathe out short.’ He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body of breath’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body of breath.’ He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in tranquillising the bodily formation’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out tranquillising the bodily formation.’

This passage is translated with the same words in my native language, but I don't understand what does it mean.
The other English translation translates this as "stilling the body’s motion". Does "tranquillising the bodily formation" means the same as "stilling the body’s motion"?

"If "tranquillising the bodily formation" means "tranquillising the breath", then why didn't Buddha just said "tranquillising the breath"? – Damocle Damoclev"

"Tranquilizing the formation of body" or "stilling, calming, tranquilizing the construction of body", or "body-constructions", or most accurately "the identification with the intent to experience experience of the body", or "tranquilizing the breathing" or "stilling the body’s motion" or "releasing any inner neuroses manifesting as tensions and jerking in the body" and probably a hundred other ways of putting this are all saying the same thing but from different perspectives.

"Body" [ka ya = k-kha whatsoever], meaning in this case that which an individual considers to be 'his body', is an illusion formed from identification with the conjunction of name and form with consciousness thereof.

That which constitutes "Form" is different in different spheres of existence. In the human, it is formed at the point where earth (solidity), water (liquidity), fire (heat-and-light), and wind (motion) meet. In other realms the components (which are themselves views of a single phenomena from different perspectives - see: http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/an/idx_06_chakkanipata.htm#p41
are merged into the less tangible forms "resistance," "adhesion," "heat" and "light," and "motion" (animation).

'Breath' here is simply the movement of, or vibration of that light. It is at the point where the breath is calmed, stilled completely, that it is possible to distinguish between consciousness tied down to consciousness of form and consciousness not so tied.

This is the split of the mangos from the mango tree.

At that point it is possible, if one is aware that this is the freedom one has been seeking, to drop identification with that consciousness that has form as its object: one is able to see it as "not me" "not mine" "not my self" "not of myself" "other". Not seen as the freedom one seeks, that is temporary freedom; seen it is Nibbana.

It is for this reason that the statement is made: "Of Bodies, I say Breath is one."

Seeing, as does the ordinary human being, this body as the issue, the source of pain, an instruction such as "stilling the body's motion" or "releasing any inner neuroses manifesting as tensions and jerking in the body" is a correct instruction for the human level. This would make no sense to a deva of one of the realms above that of manusa where 'body' is perceived as purely light.

The Buddha's Dhamma is spoken of as Timeless because it was so worded that it could be heard with both ears: that of man and that of the devas.

That's why.

"tranquillising the bodily formation" means releasing any inner neuroses manifesting as tensions and jerking in the body as well as rapid, suppressed or otherwise troubled breathing.


How can I escape the suffering of losing my Father? One day my Father will leave me. I love him a a lot. It will cause suffering when he leaves.

My question is : How can I escape the suffering of losing my Father?

Let go of what is going to cause the suffering. I.e. your attachment towards him. Practice Satipattana meditation.

Your father is not his body, he is information, "spirit"(~attitude, character) - right? As you interact with him, this information enters your system. When your father dies, it will continue in you. Not grieving over your father, not clinging to his solid form, you will allow his qualities to freely manifest in yourself. So in a way you will become continuation of your father, of what was the best in him. In that sense, your father would never die. If you cling to his solid form, you will only block the process of "him" continuing in "you".


How does Theravada practice to obtain the direct knowledge of anatta? In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta. I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain? In particular, is SN 5.10 included:

  “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?  Māra,
  is this your theory?  This is just a pile of conditions,  you won’t
  find a sentient being here.

  When the parts are assembled  we use the word ‘chariot’.  So too, when
  the aggregates are present  ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

  But it’s only suffering that comes to be,  lasts a while, then
  disappears.  Naught but suffering comes to be,  naught but suffering
  ceases.”

I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature. It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge of anatta. Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is merely a convention.

So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?

How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King?

Are there other Suttas which take precedence? What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?

There's no cutting corners nor shortcuts in Theravada. SN 5.10 speaks the truth. But to actually attain direct knowledge to this truth as opposed to mere conceptual understanding, one has to perfect the Gradual trainings of Sila-Samadhi-Panna, which Ven. Bodhi did a great job of explaining in his "Noble Eightfold Path". And to each aspect of the gradual trainings, there are many different suttas one'd need to read, study, contemplate, and put into practice (ie: for Sila: AN 8.39-43, 3.70, Sn 2.4, SN 3.5; for Samadhi: Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta; for Panna: MN 43, AN 8.2, AN 3.73, AN 7.6, and many more as detailed in Ven. Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words"). There're no shortage of teachers in the world who can eloquently speak at great length about all the ins and outs of anatta/shunyata and stuff. But when facing some young voluptuous beautiful women, some title, some power, some cash, etc. then the number start dropping like flies! Why? Because they're the experts of Anatta who fail the basics of Sila-Samadhi-Panna.

In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta.

The method to attain direct knowledge of anatta is to make the mind quiet (samadhi) so "self" thoughts diminish & also disappear. When this occurs, at the same time, the aggregates such as breathing/body, feelings of rapture, mental defilements and consciousness will be seen directly to be merely those elements/dhatu (breathing, body, feelings, defilements, consciousness, etc).

Its like observing a computer. It can be easily seen there is no 'self' in a computer; that a computer is just metal, plastic, paint, wires, glass, etc.

  I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain?

The Eightfold Path explains, namely, abandoning wrong thoughts (2nd factor); abandoning covetousness & distress (7th factor); abandoning unwholesome and developing wholesome/supramundane (6th factor); developing samadhi (8th factor), which makes subtle thoughts naturally disappear. When samadhi develops by "letting go" (SN 48.10), direct knowledge of anatta occurs without an act of will (AN 11.2).

  In particular, is SN 5.10 included: “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’? Māra, is this your theory? This is just
  a pile of conditions, you won’t find a sentient being here.

The above is just intellectual. It might help abandon self-thoughts but it takes a prolonged cleansing of self-thoughts for direct knowledge of anatta to arise towards everything.

  When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘chariot’. So too, when the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

This is just intellectual, again. It is the words of an arahant disciple to the evil Mara who believes "a being" is an thing rather than merely a "view".

Dependent Origination explains in its 11th condition about the "birth" ("jati") of these views or ideas or superstitions of "a being".

"A being" is also explained in SN 23.2; as merely an idea born from craving & attachment. In other words, there are no such thing as "sentient beings" apart from views, concepts & ideas.

This is what Venerable Sariputta teaches Yamaka in SN 22.85; that a Tathagata is not a "sentient being" that "dies" or that is "annihilated".

  But it’s only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then disappears. Naught but suffering comes to be, naught but suffering
  ceases.”

The arising of the idea of "a being" (SN 5.10) or "self" (SN 12.15) is merely the arising of suffering; born from craving & ignorant contact (SN 22.81).

  I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using
  analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature.

No. This is wrong. If the Analysis of the Chariot expounded in SN 5.10 was the best method for quickly realising anatta then Mara in SN 5.10 would have realised anatta.

  It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge
  of anatta.

No. AN 11.2 says the method to achieve the direct knowledge occurs without an act of will. The very craving to analyze the aggregates itself produces "self".

The "self" cannot realise "anatta" by engaging in intellectual Mahayana analysis. The "self" must be subsumed with samadhi. Analytical analysis alone won't work.

In the Pali suttas, the intellectual analytical analysis is called YONISO MANASIKARA, which is used preliminary to the Path.

  Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is
  merely a convention.

The above is merely intellectual. The realisation of anatta in confirmed when all craving and all defilements are destroyed in the mind. The realisation of anatta results in the IMPOSSIBILITY of suffering ever occurring again.

  So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?

No. Theravada does not agree with Mahayana.

  How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King?

There is no evidence Nagasena was an arahant because he says many wrong things that even a child can refute.