text:
How sexual relations with multiple partners affect us? What are after effects of promiscuity?
I want to know how promiscuity affects us? How it binds? What are the after affects of making many sexual partners?

In his 1st sermon, the Lord Buddha taught:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving
  for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for
  extermination.

Therefore, the more sexual partners, which is interactions based on lust, the more suffering.
Buddhism teaches to relate to people with non-harming (ahimsa), loving-kindness (metta) & compassion (karuna). Therefore, there is absolutely no place in Buddhism for the recommendation or endorsement of sexual promiscuity, because sexual promiscuity is a behaviour (kamma) rooted in lust.
MN 9, which is about Right View, states:

And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed (lust) is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root
  of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

The Dhammapada states:

Verse 202: There is no fire like lust.

In Buddhism, if a person needs to have sex due to strong natural urges, a person should establish a relationship based on loving-kindness & compassion.
In the Pali suttas, there are no teachings about how to engage in sex because all of the teachings are about how husbands & wives should behave in the more important compassionate & loving ways. For example, in AN 4.55, it is taught when a husband & wife are complete with virtue & love towards each other, they will naturally enjoy whatever sexual pleasures they desire.
In conclusion, Buddhism describes the world of promiscuity as the 'animal world', as follows:

... the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. AN 2.9

Therefore, Buddhists that tell other people that sexual promiscuity is "OK" are teaching the path (magga) leading to animal birth (tiracchāna-yoni-gamanīyā), as follows:

And what is the cause of defilements? Ignorance is the cause of defilements.
And what is the diversity in defilements? There are defilements that lead to hell, those that lead to the animal womb (tiracchānayonigamanīyā), those that lead to
  the realm of the hungry shades, those that lead to the human world,
  those that lead to the world of the devas. This is called the
  diversity in defilements.
And what is the cause of kamma? Contact is the cause of kamma.
And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals (tiracchānayonivedanīyaṃ), kamma
  to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
  experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
  of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.63

Please try to find more.

Generalisations can be made for men & women.

For men:
(i) difficulty remaining faithful in relationship due to habit of wanting other women on sight
(ii) loss of trust & being shunned in an ordinary community if becoming a habitual predator
(iii) always searching for a sex partner
(iv) unhappiness & loneliness when without a sex partner
(v) lack of virtuous development in how to care for people.
(vi) lack of morals to impart to any children
(vii) similar results to any addiction, as described in the Pali suttas, namely:

(ii) increase of quarrels,
(iii) susceptibility to disease,
(iv) earning an evil reputation,
(v) shameless exposure of body,
(vi) weakening of intellect.
(vii) he is ever thinking:
(a) where is there girls?
(b) where is there women?
(c) where is there porn?
(d) where is there sex?
(e) where is there young women?
(f) where is there mature women?
Sigalovada
Sutta
Note: points (vii)(a) to (f) are an adaptation

For women:
(i) loss of natural bonding instinct
(ii) however, often, no loss of reproductive instinct but loss of genuine love towards eventual marriage partner due to instinctual attachment to a former often first partner
(iii) loss of tolerance & strength needed to maintain a family
(iv) loss of ability to control a man (important in Matugama-samyutta)
(v) difficulty in maintaining marriage
(vi) major loss of instinctual wisdom & morality needed to bringing up children
(vii) become sexual needy & servile (rather than having natural self-control)
(viii) highly probably of needing anti-depressants when older
Pali Buddhism particularly focuses upon sexual impurity of women for such reasons. For example:

Dhammapada  242. Unchastity is the taint in a woman.

The Mātugāma Saṃyutta highlights the importance of morality in women.
In nature, the basic instincts towards moral expectations are mostly found in women. When women lose their moral compass, the world, including its men, become lost.
This is why Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama make many discrete statements about the importance of the role of women in creating a good world but few explain the truth about these matters. Most Buddhists are concerned with 'political correctness' & recruiting 'leftists' to Buddhism.

Since
women are more inclined to be compassionate, their role is more
important in creating a more peaceful society that the world aspires
to achieve," said Dalai Lama.

This is perfect answer from Point of view of Buddhism.

Is any of this answer a direct quote from the Sigalovada Sutta? Is "difficulty remaining faithful in relationship due to habit of wanting other women on sight" a quote, or (conversely) based your own experience?

Only the people in a marriage or in a relationship is covered by the third precept.
If you use your common sense it appears multiple partners could create a lot of health problems and psychological problems perhaps monetary problems.My personal opinion is it is not a good idea.

I want to know how promiscuity affects us?
It can be a good effect if one is honest with everyone involved (and they agree) and not doing it from greed. If you are breaking a contract (marriage or a monogamous relationship) then of course this will have a bad effect because you are lying and doing it through greed not natural love inclination.
Also, even if you are honest and everyone is OK and you are doing it from greed, from a strictly Buddhist point of view it is bad.
How it binds?
It does not bind... nothing has a binding effect except you yourself.
What are the after affects of making many sexual partners?
Possible STDs, complicated life, and also self-exhaustion and no transmutation of jing to chi of energies... lots of effects.

I personally don't care a hoot what religion says about sex. It has no place in my love life.  You only need to look to the rampant hypocrisy within Christianity/Catholicism to realise that the ones moralising about sex don't practice what they preach.   My view is enjoy it while you can but be cautious and stay as safe as possible. I've had countless casual encounters over my life and I don't regret any of them.


text:
Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever?
Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever?
I was thinking maybe an early school without the abhidahrma (mahasanghika) or perhaps prasangika-yogaraca in which non duality and convention / absolute emptiness is all there is.
However, do these schools say that there is no essence?

i suppose that i would say that if there is no svabhava what-so-ever, then that is not nothingness (nihsvabhava) but its inverse (emptiness of svabhava), so that the dharmakaya voidly (?) exists... apologies if my termonology is off there: i suppose i mean only the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. i think, at heart, everyone can understand the latter

I will explain some views in accordance with Madhyamaka-Prasangika:
"Essence" is something assigned by mental elaboration.
Therefore we can say that apart from mental elaborations there is no essence.
Another view is that
whatever appears (as an individual phenomenon) is its own essence.
That's because the phenomenon is what can be directly perceived; anything else would be mental additions (conceptualizations, associations). Therefore only the phenomenon itself can be its essence.
In that sense we can say that appearance and essence (or "essence and function") are the same thing.
See also discussions on svalakshana.
Note that, in order to understand "what is", we can't rely on flat view of "is" or "isn't". We should see how does appearance relate to mental processes; only there we can see real answers.
So "existence" can be seen as a construction, a way we construct our world - elaborating over directly perceived appearances.
And the deeper we go there, the more we understand that ultimately everything is "Don't Know".
PS: Note that from other points of view other concepts will be true. It would be wrong to think that a Buddhist school claims its concept as the only possible truth. For example, in Zen we can use views both of Yogachara and Madhyamaka, though they seem to contradict. "Everything is Consciousness" and "Consciousness doesn't exist". Logically these two sentences seem to contradict, but in fact they can be seen as both true; only as constructions built from different starting points; describing different levels of analysis. Likewise, we can discuss the duality of essence and function - in order to understand something - and then we can say that essence and function are the same thing, and understand something even deeper.

'Svabhava' is not found in the Pali suttas but might possibly be similar to the term 'sā dhātu' found in the Pali suttas, as follows:

Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā
Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of
the Dhamma.
AN 3.136

Thus 'svabhava' does not refer to being a 'self' but to the unique nature of something, such as an 'eye', which has the unique nature 'to see' (rather than to hear or smell); the element of earth, which has the unique nature of solidity (rather moisture); or the law of dhamma, which has the unique nature of 'anatta' & 'sunnata' (emptiness of self).

Buddha taught dependent origination without going to two extremes existence and non existence.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is Buddhism a syncretic religion, and then what would they say on the Abrahamaic religions?

Syncretism is a union or attempted fusion of different religions,
  cultures, or philosophies — like Halloween, which has both Christian
  and pagan roots, or the combination of Aristotelian philosophy with
  the belief system of the early punk rock practitioners.

I suppose some of my family are Christian, and though I wasn't really raised that way, I'm wondering, if Buddhism is syncretic, as with the Tao in China, how it has or will combine with the Abrahamaic religions.
Has there been any serious scholarship charting this, or even, though the idea seems off, predicting it?

i suppose i quite like the idea of god the father as some kind of wheel turning king, or perhaps ruling over some heaven, until reborn somewhere. :-)

It might appear that Buddhism is a syncretic religion because it apparently has some similar features to Hinduism and/or Jainism:

Rebirth
Concept of Karma
Samsara
Monks with orange robes and shaven heads
Beings like Brahma, Sakka / Indra, Yama, devas, gandhabba
Tendency to non-violence similar to Jainism
Some Mahayana deities resemble Hindu deities
The use of beads or rosaries in Mahayana Buddhism similar to Hindu
Tendency to non-violence similar to Jainism
Similar ritual elements like cremation and use of incense

In terms of philosophy, the oldest teachings of the Buddha are found in the Pali Canon, especially the Sutta and the Vinaya.
From there, we can see that some of the core and non-core Buddhist teachings, from the Pali Canon, are a stark departure from Hinduism and Jainism, and some are quite original:

The middle way between eternalism and annihilationism (both Hinduism and Jainism subscribe to eternalism of the self) - see this answer
The middle way between asceticism and indulgence (Jainism tends towards asceticism) - see this answer
The self is not eternal, not standalone and not independent - see this answer and contrast with Hindu BG2.24
The self or soul does not pervade the body (unlike the Hindu BG2.17) - see SN35.85
In terms of karma, not everything we experience is a result of past karma (compared to Jainism) - see this answer, SN36.21 and MN101
There is no Supreme Creator God (unlike Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions) - see this answer
The self or soul does not transmigrate (unlike Hindu BG2.22) - see this answer
Lay people eating meat that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket is not sinful - see this answer

However, as also discussed in this answer, later on, Buddhist and Hindu philosophy influenced each other to produce Advaita Vedanta and Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Also, Tibetan Buddhism have adopted some Hindu deities. On the other hand, there has also been debates in later times between Hindu and Buddhist scholars (see this question).
However, Anatta and the lack of a Supreme Creator God, still keeps Buddhism very far apart from the other religions, and due to this, it is very unlikely that Buddhism will form a doctrinally syncretic relationship with Hinduism, Jainism or the Abrahamic religions. The syncretism is likely to remain at the cultural level, if it exists at all.

Hinduism did not exist before Buddhism. Only the Brahman Vedas existed before Buddhism &, purportedly, some of the initial Upanishads, which may have not circulated geographically where the Buddha lived since the Pali suttas only mention the Vedas and not any early Upanishads. The Bhagavad Gita is after Buddhism.

I discussed some details about this in this answer. Here, I consider Hinduism to encompass the Vedic religion (1750 - 500 BCE), some of the shramanic traditions (500 - 200 BCE), the Upanishadic movement (500 - 200 BCE), Classical Hinduism (200 BCE - 1100 CE) and (what I guess we have today is) Modern Hinduism. The Bhagavad Gita was written around 200 BCE. The Buddha was born either on 563 or 480 BCE, in the shramanic period.

The Pali suttas only refer to the Vedas, which would date the Buddha's birth much earlier. The post-Exilic writings of the Old Testment would date the Buddha as a reformer here, also.

Original Buddhism is not syncretic.
The core Buddhism teachings (namely, the four noble truths, three characteristics, dependent origination, emptiness, six elements, here-&-now Nibbana with feeling, etc) are 100% original.
The Buddha is said to have said: "These were realities he had never heard about before".

This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light. SN 56.11

If they were not 100% original, the whole idea of a 'Buddha' would be a falsehood since a Buddha is self-fully-enlightened  without the help of a teacher (SN 6.2).
Buddhism (MN 115) states there can only be one Buddha in a world-system.

He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise
  contemporaneously in one world-system ― there is no such possibility.’
  And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully
  Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a
  possibility.’

However, lots of modern Buddhism is syncretic. Theravada is 'Maha Vihara', which refers to a Hinduistic style Buddhism from Sri Lanka (which most of the posters on this chatsite believe in).
The less profound Mahayana Buddhist teachings are very syncretic, incorporating Hindu deities and esoteric Hindu & Chinese teachings about 'non-duality' and 'non-naming'.

Judaism is also very unique in its doctrine & does not appear syncretic.
However, Christianity certainty seems Syncretic, maybe the most syncretic.
Yet the Xtian fundamentalists believe it is the most original.

"Original Buddhism is not syncretic." i agree, independent of whether that is a synthetic claim

Buddhism is not a religion, it is a practice.  Likewise, Taoism is a philosophy.  ANd I would answer, no, it is not syncretic -- it stands on its own.
As to whether it's a religion, neither have any gods, so they can't properly be called a religion.  Because even though they may be said to have scripture, these are not given by god, but by humans and so properly speaking could be said to be a perpetually-curated set of guidelines towards the perfection of the practice.
To the Asians, I believe they see it like a religion, in that they abide with a devotion by which only religion compares, yet that similarity doesn't make it a religion, in any Western sense, or even probably Near Eastern.

Are you trying to distinguish "practice" from "philosophy"? There are Taoist practices, surely. Anyway I think the core of the OP's question was whether Buddhism is syncretic (not whether it's a religion).

@ChrisW:  Good point on the religion issue.  But, I was making a distinction between practice and philosophy.  One can believe in one without the other (people meditate without buddhism, and people believe in Taoism without any practices).

i don't know why my comment was deleted, it didn't seem offensive. you can say that communion isn't a religion it is a practice, but it doesn't make any sense to, i think

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is working too much (for money) a form of indulgence?
I have a tendency to take up many job opportunities for the sake of earning money beyond what is necessary. Can working too much for monetary gain be considered a form of indulgence that leads to the development of greed?
Sutta or other textual references are appreciated.

Buddha admire wealthy people who earn their wealth by right lively hood.
However he encourage people to use their wealth wisely for their benefit and the benefit of others.
Link to two major Suttas are:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.06.nara.html

SN 3.19 criticises earning money for the sake of it & miserly hoarding money.
The Rāsiyo Sutta (12) praise people who can make lots of money when they are not attached to the money and, in particular, spend the money for the benefit of themselves & particularly others.
Other suttas that mention the beneficial necessity of money are Anana Sutta & Sigalovada Sutta
Therefore, the Pali suttas praise the having & using of money for beneficial purposes & criticise making of money motivated by greed.


text:
What do Buddhists say about illogical self sacrifice?
I don't want to sound Vulcan, but I mean self sacrifice which is out of proportion, what do Buddhists say about it? So as an example, going on a dangerous hunger strike, in order that your well fed friend has another loaf of bread.
I got thinking about this via dying for the "one you love", but obviously that sort of thinking is off in Buddhism.

hey, any comment on the downvote friend :)

Here are three possible angles to look at it from:

A genuinely selfless action can be a wholesome act of generosity and compassion. But...
A sacrifice of any kind can be wholesome or unwholesome depending on the deep motivation. If the action is meant to manipulate or punish others (or even yourself), it will have bad results. Sometimes we are not aware of how we can have selfish motives for apparently selfless acts, so we have to be careful.
One of the "fetters" that binds a being to endless rounds of rebirths is attachment to "rites and rituals". So fasting as an attempt to propitiate fate or karma or God, or to achieve some kind of magical outcome, is useless. Prior to his enlightenment, the Buddha spent years starving himself thinking that that was the route to liberation from suffering. His motivation was pure, but he realized that it was pointless to destroy his body.

yes good start if i were serious contemplating this rather than just asking a dumb question. with well wishes :)

In Buddhist Jataka stories you find Bodhisatva (Buddha in a previous life) sacrificing his life to feed hungry animals etc.
However, in Sutta what you find is the practice of the middle path or Noble Eightfold Path.

Self-sacrfice for me is doing the washing up in the temple (or anywhere else for that matter) - I'm doing it in service of the dharma, other motives (besides obvious practical ones) are wrong (this is on a good day btw, normally I'm doing it because I'm told to :)).
Other types of self-sacrifice often look to me like acts of extreme defiance coming from anger and ego, but I think it's a matter of choice ultimately.

If there is no-Self (無我), who is being sacrificed? If there is no-Self, who is doing the washing up - this is a Ch'an Ko'an :)?

The small self is sacrifed, the self left doing dishes is Buddha.

i like this comment :)


text:
Does Dogen's wholehearted way say anything about the status of memory?
Seems to me that memory is notoriously fallible, whatever we think about the nature of the self. I have a copy, but rather than reread it, I thought to ask, whether Dogen's wholehearted way, or right effort in general, from moment to moment, involves relying only on those memories of immediate relevance?

If you are referring to the intellectual capability of memory (隨念智), then this is not mentioned in Bendowa.
The whole-hearted way is, as you say, awareness from moment to moment. According to Zen, it is the experiential reality, not the memory or interpretation thereof (even if the memory is one of realization). The memory of a previous realization cannot help you. It will in fact hinder you if it arises. This is well explained in Mumonkan case 22:
Ananda asked Kashyapa, "The World-honored One gave you the golden robe; did he give you anything else.
"Ananda!" cried Kashyapa.
"Yes, sir!" answered Ananda.
"Knock down the flagpole at the gate," said Kashyapa.

Memory does not appear in the translated Bendowa
However, if we consider that memory might be defined as "held thought", then this passage from the Bendowa may be relevant:

All Buddhas continually dwell within this state, with None holding
  onto any of Their thoughts or perceptions, regardless of whatever may
  arise, whereas the great mass of sentient beings perpetually make use
  of what is within this state, but without their being fully awake to
  any situation

I don't know "Dogen's wholehearted way" but I do know memory is needed to make perception of being. Memory is collected knowledge and experiences from the past. It makes YOU recognize, label, discriminate, it builds YOUR conditions to act or react and is unique for every living being. It all comes with a thought. Some are true, some are false. The truth is in yourself, you only have to meditate/pray to find it. Clear yourself from all negative energy and reach a higher state of consciousness, your memory then becomes irrelevant. Feel and be, don't think. Good luck!

This is about Dogen's Shobogenzo, answer provides little value in this context.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why activity makes me material & full of desires?
I am in very dilemma- When I am inactive or lazy I meditate well, read good religious books etc. But whenever I come into action like studies or useful work I become very material & also get desires to earn a lot of money, respect or other material desires by which I stop doing meditate & completely become indulgent. Can anyone tell me the way to be active & meditator simultaneously. In this current globalized & dynamic world it is huge requirement to be active but that activity makes me material & forget to work for this birth to cross Sansara or Dukkha. So how can I be active & aspirant to dissolve Dukkha/future births simultaneously?

What really matters for a lay person as per Buddhist teaching is whether you are at least a Sotapanna which assures you the enlightenment withing seven births. As far as you have the right livelyhood you do not have to worry being materialistic and being rich.

I can't wait for 7 births.

At least seven. It could be in this life it self. Sotapanna is almost 99% close to Nibbana.

Sometimes during meditation, a noisy drill or something will start up from outside. Those times are great because you really get to see whether you are able to meditate or you just like the pleasure of tranquil sitting (I am not lazing! I am meditating!).
As long as the job itself conforms to right livelihood (samyag-ājīva / sammā-ājīva), it does not in of itself contradict the dharma.
It is not a problem to want to earn a lot of money. It takes a lot of smarts to be able to do so and you can do a lot of good for a lot of people with a lot of money. The answer lies in your motivation, what you want the money for. Engineers like to solve problems and make things work. Sales people genuinely like interacting with other people. You will have your own vocation.

Let a man, after he has discerned his own duty, be always attentive to
  his duty.
  Dhammapada XII.166

To study, to work, to make a difference, to "light up a corner of the world", these are all admirable things. To please yourself with temporal goodies of all kinds maybe not so much, although:

He who, though dressed in fine apparel, exercises tranquility, is
  quiet, subdued, restrained, chaste, and has ceased to find fault with
  all other beings, he indeed is a Brahmana, an ascetic (sramana), a
  friar (bhikshu).
  Dhammapada X.142

I have never read anywhere in the Pali scriptures where the Buddha threatened lay people with continuous cycles of rebirth or urged lay people to end rebirths. In the Pali scriptures, I have only read the Buddha teaching the path to 'heaven' for laypeople.
The Buddha taught lay people to work with initiative & energy; to make enough money to support themselves, their family & others.
In this current globalized & dynamic world, you must be efficient. Discipline & non-attachment can help.

"So how can I be active & aspirant to dissolve Dukkha/future births
  simultaneously?"

You cannot do it simultaneously.
If you're active, you must think. With thinking, there is no meditation. Thus, no dissolving of Dukkha/future births.
If you're not active, you can stop thinking. Without thinking, there is meditation. Thus, yes dissolving of Dukkha/future births.
Ask yourself what is more important to you? Then do just this one thing and let the other not be a priority.
Whatever you choose, either being active or not being active, you will come to not being active.
Why is this so?
By choosing being active, sooner or later you will get all your desires satisfied.
If not in this life, it will be in the next. Or the next. Or the 100th.
In this satisfaction, no happiness will be found. In satisfying your desires, you will find only happiness that leads to suffering. Constantly circling and going from suffering to happiness and vice versa. This is what satisfying desires leads to. This is the result. This is the truth of satisfying desires.
Once you realise the above truth, you'll let go of desires. Thus, you'll let go of materialism.
Then, you'll live your life modestly, without aquiring to much nor to little and do what is left to do: become not active.
Meditation will happen. Whatever you choose.

It appears you may not be meditating while you are active, therefore not actually seeing the material desire as it arises in the moment, only knowing about it retrospect, which produces regret, guilt and suffering. If you can see how your mind constructs these material desires in the moment, you will be better equipped to let them go over and over every time they arise. Stop thinking about meditation as an adjunct to life. It is life. Develop mindfulness at all times.

Meditation involves withdrawing from sense desires. Being active and being mindful is possible, if you develop sufficient base level of mindfulness and equanimity by practicing it ardently so that you are not taken over by your desires when interacting with the world.
But your question is not that, is it? It seems to me that while you in principle accept that meditation is the way forward, you cannot bring yourself around to give up the worldly pleasures. So your question in essence is "Do I do the boring meditation or get excited about the world and the riches it offers? One way there is an end, but the path appears to be boring while the other is exciting but without any end in sight"
Its not easy to give up on pleasures, or the process of becoming, identification. What you can do is develop insight into this, and see for yourself what these drives are made of. When you feel the excitement, ask yourself what is it made of? Is it permanent or transient? Will it bring me the promised pleasure or will it leave me high and dry, in want of more like an addict needing another fix? Will attending to these desires bring any satisfaction, release or will I be perpetually a slave to it?
See for yourself that these drives are transient, unsatisfactory and without any essence. That in essence is mindfulness. And that leads to unbinding from the samsara and dukkha.

Because you have not dissolved the Hindrances, Afflictions, and not attained Awakening. These fires are active in all people.
Instead of taking the restrictive and simpler path: the Theravadin path of becoming a monastic.... most of us have to choose to take the Mahayana path--the path of attaining Awakening within the world of Samsara which has become more complex in nature.
This is the path of Bodhisattva and produces a superior class of Enlightened beings as compared to the Theravadin path whereby such people cannot keep their peace within the world. But unfortunately, in some ways this path is harder than ever (more desires).... In other ways this path is easier now than ever (technology, facilities, conveniences, GTD).
Keep practicing and learn to not add attention/energy to fires.


text:
Is it bad karma to disagree with an arhat?
I just wondered, is it bad karma at all to disagree with an arhat? I'm not saying I would, I just wondered, because killing one is phenomenally bad!
What about disagreeing with a Buddha?

According to the Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect.

If you see this answer, bad karma or not, is related to the intentions of the individual. The story of the blind monk Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1 and the story of the hunter's wife in Dhammapada 124 would serve as good examples from the scriptures.
If the individual has intentions that is insulting, disparaging or malicious towards the Buddha or arahant, then that would be generating bad karma.
However, if someone respectfully disagrees with the Buddha or arahant because he does not have the same view or understanding, then this should not be bad karma. If someone talks to a Buddha or Arahant, he should not incur bad karma, if he does so based on the principles of Right Speech (samma vaca), even if he disagrees with the opinion of the Buddha or the Arahant.
As said in the famous Kalama Sutta by the Buddha, just because a certain person is your teacher, it does not mean that you should simply accept what he or she says. Rather, it is preferable that you should accept the teachings only after you have known for yourself that it is good.

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
  this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
  scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
  agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
  'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
  that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
  these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
  & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
  & remain in them.

Despite this, SN25 does have a provision for "faith followers" to meet a good end simply by having conviction and belief in the teachings of the Buddha, because it would lead them down the right track.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
  called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
  rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
  plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
  which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
  of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has
  realized the fruit of stream-entry.

Nevertheless, the Buddha was a great teacher who managed to convince those who insulted and verbally abused him (see Akkosa Sutta), mocked him (see Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta) and intended to challenge or test him (see Dhananjaanii Sutta and Acela Sutta). Of course, there are also times when the Buddha knew when to give up trying to convince someone (see Kesi Sutta).
The Buddha also understood and empathized that the truth he discovered may not be easily understood by everyone (see Ariyapariyesana Sutta):

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

Also, don't forget that it may not be easy for unenlightened individuals to know who the Buddha really is, just like the case in the Dona Sutta and also the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

A second time... A third time, the group of five monks said to me, 'By
  that practice, that conduct, that performance of austerities you did
  not attain any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge &
  vision worthy of a noble one. So how can you now — living luxuriously,
  straying from your exertion, backsliding into abundance — have
  attained any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge &
  vision worthy of a noble one?'
"When this was said, I replied to the group of five monks, 'Do you
  recall my ever having spoken in this way before?'

While the Buddha may be omniscient, the Arahants may not even recognize that the other is also an Arahant (see Bhaddiya Sutta). So, Arahants are not omniscient. They are only enlightened or freed from suffering.

To draw a sample to Rubens introductional justification: similar to the blind would be one with a mental defect, and similar to the hunters wife, would be one who is forced to take a certain stand (or is simply quite because obligated). Maybe it's good to investigate intention a little deeper. Maybe it's also easy to missunderstand, that not "following" and disagree are different aspects. Just thoughts, maybe useful.

Of course it is! Almost by definition. Buddha's words are true and beneficial. Therefore by disagreeing you are setting yourself up for suboptimal results in the best case, if not for disaster. With lesser realization levels - once-returners, stream-enterers etc., the same general rule also applies, although mathematically speaking the odds that they are at least partially wrong are progressively higher, so your bad karma is correspondingly less severe.
The only loophole here that I can see, is if you disagree with Buddha due to misunderstanding of his way of expression - but then arrive at the same conclusions yourself and act accordingly. But if you actively disagree and act contrary to the teaching, you are most definitely setting yourself up for trouble.

...like a child not listenand following it's fathers benefical directive advice. Sadhu!

One thing to keep in mind is that the pluralistic society that the Buddha lived in had a very strong tradition of religious freedom and freedom of speech in religious matters.  Lay people could listen or not listen to arhants and wanderers; they could donate or not donate.  They freely disagreed and debated among each other.  Secular rulers allowed all of the sectarian teachers to operate in their dominions, and would not punish or persecute even contemplatives whom they knew were wrong.
Perhaps the only difference between his culture and the west today is that we have written laws protecting religious liberty, due to the religious wars of European history; whereas in his culture such laws were unnecessary.
In light of this, consider how the Buddha gladly debated anybody who cared to debate him.  Surely, in his great compassion, he would not have debated the adherents of other sects, and their teachers, if doing so put them at risk for unfortunate karma.

Generally, we do not know any arahants.
However, in respect to the Pali suttas, it is not bad kamma to disagree with a sutta teaching if you have experienced what the sutta is asserting to be untrue.
But if you reject the words of a sutta blindly & also somehow think you are a Buddhist, this is bad kamma.
A Buddhist should defer faith or trust to the suttas unless they have strong grounds to reject something in the suttas.
For example, I reject many things in the suttas and what I reject I consider to not be the words of a Buddha or arahant.
Ultimately, the suttas say to only believe what you have realised for yourself. To quote:

Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Teacher is our respected mentor. We speak thus out of respect for the Teacher'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Contemplative says this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative's words'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you dedicate yourselves to another teacher?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you return to the observances, grand ceremonies, & auspicious rites of common contemplatives &
  brahmans as having any essence?"
"No, lord."
"Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have known, seen, & understood for yourselves?"
"Yes, lord
MN 38


text:
Where does Gautam Buddha say so?
I want details of following quote by Gautam Buddha. Can anyone tell where (reference) & what completely he said?

It's introduced, briefly, on this page of the "Fake Buddha Quotes" web site.


text:
Attacking others with words such as they are weapons
Reference needed.  I remember reading a sutta where Buddha mentioned something like a stream enterer would no longer use words to attack others like weapons.  I would like to read that sutta in its entirety again.  Thanks.

There's a phrase like that Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (Ud 6.4):

And they kept on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying,

"The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this."

This sutta contains the simile of the elephant.
The phrase is also in the next two suttas (Ud 6.5 and 6.6).

The sutta about "verbal daggers"? I can't remember it.
Oh! I found it:

When the Dhamma has been taught by me in such a way through different methods of exposition, it may be expected of those who will not
  concede, allow and approve of what is well stated and well spoken by
  others that they will become contentious and quarrelsome and engage in
  disputes, and that they will dwell stabbing each other with verbal
  daggers. But when the Dhamma has been taught by me in such a way
  through different methods of exposition, it may be expected of those
  who will concede, allow and approve of what is well stated and well
  spoken by others that they will live in concord, with mutual
  appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water,
  viewing each other with kindly eyes.
SN 36.19

I found it.  From MN48 Discourse at Kosambī

And what, monks, is that view which is ariyan, leading onwards, and which leads him who acts according to it to the complete destruction of anguish? Herein, monks, a monk who is forest-gone or gone to the root of a tree or gone to an empty place, reflects like this; ‘Now, have I a subjective obsession, not got rid of, owing to which I, if my mind were obsessed by it, could not know, could not see (things) as they really are?
  (1) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by addiction to sense-pleasures, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (2) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by malevolence, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (3) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by sloth and torpor, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (4) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by restlessness and worry, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (5) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by doubt, to this extent is his mind obsessed, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (6) If, monks, a monk centres his thought on this world, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (7) If, monks, a monk centres his thought on the world beyond, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (8) If, monks, a monk, disputatious, quarrelsome, contentious, lives wounding with the weapons of his tongue, to this extent is his mind obsessed. He comprehends thus: ‘I have no subjective obsession, not got rid of, owing to which I, if my mind were obsessed by it, could not know, could not see (things) as they really are; my thought is well directed towards awakening as to the truths.’ This is the first knowledge won by him, ariyan, transcendental, not in common with average men.

ps. thanks for the answers

There are already good answers (as for a part of the question, and not thought about the intent of the question), Nyom Dean, but we need to be careful to take this answers not as a weapon against those who deedly compassioned like to cut away our defilements which are claiming the talked in this Suttas by hard when they are attacted as means to let them survive. Many take the Dhamma as weapon against the three juwels and so was it even in the Buddhas time:

Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya - (On Right Speech)
..."Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: 'Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?' If Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how is there any difference between you, lord, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others.' But if Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how, lord, did you say of Devadatta that "Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable"? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours.' When Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned chestnut[1] were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up."... read the whole about right Speech

The Buddha, like all other good teacher, are actually very skilled in use there weapon and there are many stories where they "brought" the "opposer" on the floor, "won over him" made his defilements neutal and even dis-manteled him in front of a big group, but not for any gain or to higher themselves, but to bring him in a situation where he can be talked the Dhamma, has no change to escape, or like in cases like in the above sutta, to bring his disciples again on the lain (or speak to them clear that somebody acts wrong).
A good sample in regard of one of the many fights we find in the teachings is: Cula-Saccaka Sutta: The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka
Many of the Suttas in MN may offer to see that it is not the most skillful to lay down the sword of skilled speech but show like in AN 4.100, that equanimity is not the highes skill:

"There are, Master Gotama, those four kinds of persons found existing in the world. Of those four, the one that seems to me the most excellent and sublime is the one who speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; and who also speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely. For what reason? Because what excels, Master Gotama, is knowledge of the proper time to speak in any particular case.

(proper time is when possible and nessesary, sometimes also "just" for others if the certain doer is not capable to take.)
So to give the answer, "Does a stream-enter still uses the weapon of speech", the last Sutta and the samples of Buddha, his disciples, till good teachers of today, will show: "Yes (if wishing) he/she will use the weapon of even strong speech (yet still not with word of fools an outcasts), but not for gain, not to harm and simply out of compassion, less are able to receive.", and if a stream enter would have use it in affect in a wrong way (with akusala mind), maybe as defense (never for intended gain!), as a break of good conduct, he would suddenly confess his wrong doing. So it might aslo happen that a Noble One uses not nice word wrongly.
It's good to do not just pick up certain things from the teachings and use it as weapon. Most Dhamma-Dealer (those who make a livelihood in teaching, or gain, claim and sometimes even provide no defilement-cutting of speech, "peaceful, not opposing speech, ever lovely speech", because the costumers and fans like that, or better their defilements and so they are able to make more gain while simply slander and harm the Dhamma and lead people to fools. Why? Because what counts is the truth and not artifacted peace for nobodies benefit.
Take care to do not use this weapon Dhamma to kill youself off. That goes quick if grasping the head of the snake, walk a way of demand peace and metta (yet on fight and aversive your self), and if not willing to put oneself under good authority, its hard to get the right way.
Hope that this - surely at first - unpleasant answer reaches the worriors and warriors at the right time before theiy cut them off with an haft and incomplete weapon and reason to fight.
Many think "Oh I Won." Having make a visible strike. But the cut of the other war's so sharp that they still do not realice that the head has been seperated already and it's just a matter of time that he will fall down."

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

What do you think? Is this a sample of a Monk you harms you? Heavily harmed your defilements? And/Or sharp words to stay on track and to keep you from serious wrongdoing? Deeply compassioned with some good wisdom, or the act of a fool? Think good and wise about it and its up to the wisdom of the receiver if a gift is taken or rejected. Meaning at least, only a Noble One would recognice another with secure. Just one who had seen will know if a reminder is right. Other need to think, test, observe and bring it to have seen by my self fist or have deep faith.
Anumodana!
A maybe extended answer and a possibility to ask further or/and discuss the topic can be found here.
(Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or any other wordily gain)


text:
Possible to attain happiness without support, through art?
Is it possible to attain happiness without support, through art, not overt meditation?
I'm not really an expert on any art, but take the question (somewhat) seriously.

maybe i should delete this already. chuffed with an idea =/= much

Working on your hobbies, advancing your career, developing a family, nurturing a child, going on vacations, increasing your wealth, raising your status in the world, attaining fame in society etc. could all make you happy.
Here, I'm guessing that art could be your hobby or career.
But the point is that these types of happiness would not last forever.
The goal of Buddhism is to find the sort of happiness that would be permanent.
On another note, please see this answer on why actors may go to hell and this answer which elaborates on the point that music and entertainment is not allowed for those undertaking the training of the eight precepts, ten precepts or ordination into monkhood.

Very good and precise answer.

As Ruben already told
Of course it is possible to gain happiness trough art but this kind of happiness has underlying suffering, at least because it is constructed and not lasting, is dependend and needs nurishment. The only way to gain freedom of suffering is the noble eigtfold path, and sensuallity is an obstacel to develop it, at least.
How ever, since art is a fine skill, it might be very usefull to have such, since the skill of a craftsman or artist is at it's heat the same like the path to develop the path. Buddha was very skilled in all kinds of arts and that not only gave him a good background in how to develop things, but also a understanding that things are done by deeds. Later he would use his talent to develope something that goes beyound oldage, sickness and death.
All the means to learn that skills have been brought as samples drawn from craft and art.
The Craft of heart, by Ajahn Lee might introduce you to the art of the Noble ones.
(Note: This answer is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial means or other wordly gains)


text:
Do fully enlightened "persons" still meditate, and why?
Do fully enlightened "persons" still meditate, and why? I get why they keep living, to help sentient beings. But does meditation help in that way?

sorry for that, my mistake

Yes, Buddha did meditate. This is for the pleasant abiding here and now.
From the discussion, What did Buddha do to pass his time? --

Some relevant info:

Then the Blessed One, having emerged from seclusion after the passing of
    three months, addressed the monks: “Monks, if wanderers of other sects
    ask you, ‘By means of what dwelling, friends, did Gotama the
    contemplative mostly dwell during the rains residence?’: You, thus asked,
    should answer them in this way: ‘It was by means of the concentration of
    mindfulness of breathing that the Blessed One mostly dwelled.’ …

This means that right mindfulness functions not only as a factor of the path,
  but also as a pleasant pastime for those who have fully developed the path and
  tasted its ultimate fruit.

This quote is originally from the Icchānaṅgala Sutta  (SN 54:11).

do we know why the buddha meditated?

He is not deliberately meditating like a beginner. Meditation is his natural relaxed state when he is not occupied with anything else.


text:
What does Buddhism say that the laity should do when someone injuries them?
What does Buddhism say that the laity should do when someone injuries them?
So in Christianity there is "turn the other cheek", which seems easy to do, if not understand.

The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New
  Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an
  eye" is given by Jesus: 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An
  eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That
  ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
  turn to him the other also.

How should we ordinary beings respond to injury?

It is up to each situation. Some case running away is proper, but some case negotiating is proper, etc.
The theory is "The buddhist people will try to keep 1)own benefit, 2)other benefits, 3)public benefit, 4)this life benefit, 5)next life benefit, and 6)nibbāna benefit. They try to keep whole 6 benefits, no bias."
Methods, to keep benefits, are multiple up to consciousness management ability of each person.

Please see the question on "Can or should a Buddhist defend themselves physically?"
Self-defense is OK. According to Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."

However, we should not bear ill-will or hatred in our minds, even if we're defending ourselves.  From the Kakacupama Sutta:

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb,
  with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will
  at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a
  situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds
  be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil
  words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of
  love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall
  live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons,
  making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of
  universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and
  measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of
  hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should
  train yourselves.

If someone insults you and you don't take it in personally, then it "goes back" to that person. Similarly, any kind of ill-will from others should not be taken personally. From the Akkosa Sutta:

"And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple & non-staple
  foods & delicacies?"
"Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple & non-staple foods &
  delicacies."
"And if they don't accept them, to whom do those foods belong?"
"If they don't accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine."
"In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who
  is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not
  taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating:
  that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.
"Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one
  who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to
  be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am
  neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all
  yours. It's all yours."

There are various ways to handle this situation.
These instructions are mainly for monks.
This matter is discussed in detail in the following Sutta.
As a lay person, you can handle the situation like reporting the matter to the police etc.Perhaps you can stop the person with nonviolence manner like self-defense. These are my personal opinion.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html

The message of Buddha is similar, althought he did not give a direct advice how a lay person should react on harm to lay people but indirect in gaving given absolute valide precepts: not harming and destroing life (incl. ALL living beings, also not for food), not to take what is not given, not to speak what is not true and not to misbehave in fleshes lust and not to take indoxicants, which easy cause such.
As for monks, and people who are intented to liberation, the position is and advice is more direct and clear given, not intended for the world but beyound and most famous is the saw-simily:
{patient endurance} MN 21, MN 28
There will follow a good collection of other sayings in this regard and this clear approach in many good answers.
Other than Jesus appearing and how he wins people, Buddha does not advice at it is heroic to and on the cross in serving and try to help others, he does not advice to dy for others, but for those who desire real benefit and liberation, even to dy for the training in keeping his discipline and told that his monks would rather like to dy then to break the basic and importand precepts.
So there is no evidence of advices for sacrify one self for the world and its purpose, at least to help others in the best possible way one can.
One who seeks for revenge will never be at peace, thats of cource the same message in this regard but martyr in this regard has no place and is not praised by the Buddha and his informed followers, also to act for possible display and transport such. Of course people often preach of how many sacrifies the Buddha did, gave his life, to become a Buddha to push on a certain "feel obligated" botton to win followers, but he himself did not.
Just to try to point out the differnces, not so easy to trace and would require much more explaining to understand.
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not mean for commercial purpose or other wordily gains.)


text:
How observance of the 5 Precepts is done?
As I know one says the 5 propositions and then goes about his day.
Or are the precepts also pegs for mindfulness? Keeping them constantly in mind?

You have to keep the five precepts constantly in your mind.
After while it becomes second nature to you.

Please see this question on Appamada (heedfulness). We need to be heedful of the precepts that we choose to undertake willingly.
This is an idea that doesn't just exist in religion or spirituality.
If you are a professional like a medical doctor, you need to be aware that the life and health of your patients depend on your decisions. If you're a civil and structural engineer designing a building, the lives of the many people who may use the building you designed, depend on your design.
If you have very young children, you need to be always aware of where they are and what they are doing. When you're leaving your house everyday, you need to be mindful of locking the doors, locking the windows and turning off the gas or other heating appliances so that you wouldn't cause accidental fires.
Similarly, you have to be heedful of the precepts that you choose to undertake willingly.
There are also other aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path like Right Speech or Right Action, that we may need to be heedful of.
If you commit yourself to be heedful of practising something, then it should be similar to being heedful of being constantly aware of your very young children's whereabouts and wellbeing. I think it is not very different.

The Five Precepts can be taken formally, but to observe them properly you must be heedful not to break any of the rules during the day. When you break one of the rules, however, there is no need to punish yourself. Keep in mind that you are observing the precepts and strive to improve. This is where being mindful throughout the day of the precepts is important.
One cannot simply be a person who "says the 5 propositions [sic] and then goes about his day" because the whole point of undertaking the five precepts is to follow them and realize the benefits.

Maybe usefull to answer the question: How to Observe(ing) the (5) precepts, Ursula

Keep 5 precepts in mind, first queue, and  meditate together. But meditation is second queue.
As time goes by, 5 precepts will be automatically appear in mind. At that time, you just use a few time to check the precepts.
However, if you in a meditation course, you should do follow to your teacher, first. Because (certified) buddhist teacher must can read the practitioner mind. So he should know what is the best for his student.


text:
Does Dogen bring good news?
As I understand it, Dogen says that, at least for those new to seated meditation, there is no enlightenment outside seated meditation.
Well, to me that if true that's awful! No speech, no writing, no solidarity, etc.? I think it's this that is the stumbling block along the buddha way, for me.
Does it even have an answer?

to improve your question, i suggest to quote exactly what Dogen said. Thanks. Regards

Dogen is not alone in his opinion.  Samma samadhi is one of the factors of the eightfold path.  Unless you meditate, your practice will never be as deep as it could be.

@xxxx no i know that. i was referring to a more extreme claim

One of Dogen's major teachings is 'practice and enlightenment are one' - what is important for Dogen is continuous effort in the dharma, and the basis of that effort is seated meditation. This applies to all practitioners, new and old alike.
Dogen tended to be disparaging of other schools, but if you want a less partisan Soto opinion you could read 'The teachings of Homeless Kodo' which acknowledges the value of other types of practice.

To clarify a bit: I don't think Dogen means there's no enlightenment outside zazen, he means no difference can be found between enlightenment and the expression of enlightenment, and the expression of enlightenment is practice, whether that's formal zazen, samu (work), ceremonies, eating, washing, using the toilet etc. It's not an easy message to swallow, and not for everyone. Also, Dogen's writing is notoriously difficult, many think deliberately difficult. Good luck :)

samu ceremonies are not different from enlightenment even for those that have not sat zazen??

If you are mindful, everything is an expression of enlightenment.

Perhaps you're reading a paraphrase or mistranslation.
Wikiquote says ...

Zazen is the ultimate practice. This is indeed the True Self. The Buddhadharma is not to be sought outside of this.

... which is more or less what you're quoting or referring to in the OP.

But read item 2-22 (page 64 of 145) of this translation of Shobogenzo Zuimonki -- it says ...

Apart from sitting, there is nothing to seek as the buddha-dharma.

If you read the whole story I think the emphasis is meant to be on "not seeking", that it's "not to be sought" ... perhaps the lesson is that "seeking" is a symptom of desire, craving, aversion, vanity, etc.

The story at the end ...

Baso said, “How can you make a mirror by polishing a tile?”
  Nangaku replied, “How can you become a buddha by practicing zazen?”

... might even imply the opposite about zazen: that the act, or outward form, of sitting is not sufficient.

there are always corrections etc. in zen, ways to go beyond thinking and language... so yea, but then zazen is all effort. etc.

This is dorky, but, whatever atheists say, I think that zen is the truest way to celebrate!
Better than drinking the blood of your enemies anyway.
So, even if Dogen does not bring "good news": he bloody well should.

In his later writings, Dogen set forth a number of very detailed texts on topics like reading and reciting Sutras, cleaning the temple, liturgy and ritual, general temple discipline, etc. He said all of this constitutes “practice”, even stretching the definition of “Zazen” to include these things. So no, “just sitting” is not the whole story after all, or if it is, it includes a very wide range of affairs.
Dogen also wrote a powerful text on the importance of moral discipline, and the Lotus Sutra is mentioned several hundred times in the Shobogenzo. In the fascicle “Taking Refuge in the Three Jewels” he calls the Lotus Sutra “The great king and grand master of all the various Sutras that Shakyamuni wrote, with all the others serving as its loyal subjects” (Kie bupposobo, Dogen 2.37).
Daily Sutra study took place from 4-5 pm without fail according to Dogen’s schedule for activities at Eiheiji Temple.
Lastly there is the famous and beloved text he wrote on “Instructions for the Head Cook.” Deeply moved by the wisdom of a temple cook who was also a monk but had little time for seated zazen, Dogen stressed that the position of temple cook should be considered a special high honor to be bestowed on a wise monk. In minute detail, he describes the steps for food acquisition, preparation, kitchen cleaning etc. and seems to regard the intensely focused precision of a cook who follows the rules to the letter as a not only valid but esteemed form of special practice.
So…in short, just sitting can mean more than literally just sitting. And why not? Dogen’s legendary word play gives him license to do whatever he wishes with mere words, no?


text:
Vedana - feelings or sensations?
I understand feelings as feeling happy, sad, elated, down -  more like an emotion.
Sensations I understand as hot, cold, tingly, numb, all kinds of body pains or pleasant sensations in the body.
Which ones does the Buddha refers to in the Suttas?
I believe they are the sensations in the body and not feelings.
For example is I see a beautiful woman, eye and form, contact -> pleasant sensation in the abdomen -> craving(lust) -> clinging -> becoming and at this stage feeling happy with the beautiful woman form and then a bit sad when I dont see her and prompted by craving I start looking for another beautiful form to cling to and then happy, sad, repeating the cycle again and again.
In my understanding sensations are vedana and not feelings.

The dejection of not seeing her again is 'death' ('marana').  Eye and form, contact -> pleasant sensation in the abdomen -> craving(lust) -> clinging -> becoming -> birth as lover -> death of lover -> sorrow, saddness, despair, grief, dukkha. This is the cycle of birth & death; gain & loss; samsara.

This question is about words. The Pali words are 'vedana' ('feelings') & 'sankhara' ('formations').
Happy, sad, elated, down - more like an emotion = sankhara ('formations'). To quote:

When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built
  up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal
  of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and
  that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s
  bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers
  increase and one experiences bodily and mental suffering (kāyadukkhampi cetodukkhampi paṭisaṃvedeti). MN 149

Hot, cold, tingly, numb, all kinds of body pains or pleasant sensations = 'vedana'. To quote:

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling (vedanaṃ)? ‘It feels (vedayatī),’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It
  feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. ‘It
  feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. SN 22.79

But some body pains are formations, such as when due to anger, stress, anxiety, etc. To quote:

When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built
  up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal
  of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and
  that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s
  bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers
  increase and one experiences bodily and mental suffering (kāyadukkhampi cetodukkhampi paṭisaṃvedeti). MN 149

The core feature of 'vedana' ('feelings' or 'sensations') is they arise from sense contact. To quote:

‘The six classes of feeling should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and
  forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact;
  with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the ear and
  sounds, ear-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact;
  with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the nose and
  odours, nose-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is
  contact; with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the
  tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; the meeting of the
  three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling.
  Dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; the
  meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is
  feeling. Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness
  arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition
  there is feeling. So it was with reference to this that it was said:
  ‘The six classes of feeling should be understood. ’ This is the fifth
  set of six. MN 148

Where as formations arise from defilement (craving) & thinking (sankhara). To quote:

What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
  Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of
  objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present & future
  forms cognizable via the eye. MN 18

So I think you're saying that, saying that "That is a tingling feeling" is a vedana. What about saying "That tingling is a nice feeling or a nasty feeling" ... is that vedana too? I'm not sure I've caught the difference between vedana, sanna, and sankhara.

That is Papanka, but formations can arise without craving and defilement as the Buddha and Arahants speak and think without defilement and craving


text:
What is the meaning of the "one mind" in the awakening of faith?
You can read that shastra here. I'm quite fond of it, though I don't have my own meditation practice.
If I had to narrow the question down, I'd ask if it contains different practices, of different sentient beings. Not absolutely sure that makes sense, though. I like the idea of it substituting for 'heaven' on those grounds, of others.

i found this and will read it, and post an answer in the next few days, if no-one else does.

'One mind' means reality, the reality which is in front of you now and which you are part of. It manifests in two ways - as the absolute, when you don't concieve in terms of self and others; and the phenomenal, when you do.

thanks for the reply, gavin. should i leave one about Wonhyo? i'm not sure

Yes, that's what the site is for :) I will be interested to find out what it means...


text:
How do Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of Maitreya's prophecy?
How do Mayahana and Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of Maiterya's prophecy?
I know for a fact that some e.g. son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi, and that some Vajrayana monks have taught Buddhahood in this very body.
But if Maitreya is the next Buddha, how can that be, given he's still not arrived, and is in the tusita heaven? Are there different kinds of perfect enlightenment, and the above realisations are in some way lesser (or more?) than Maiterya's?

I think your question embedded two questions and should be dealt separately to give clear answer: a) How do Mahayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya? b) How do Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya when there are son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi?
a) How do Mahayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya?
The answer for a) is very simple, almost needn't answer; Maitreya is the only next Buddha to come, it will take long long long time, 5.6 billion years according to one saying.
(i) Mahayana Buddhists (Chinese tradition) held there is only one future Buddha to come after Shakyamuni, that is, Maitreya. Though Mahayana has Sutra recounting the total of these 1000 Buddhas in this Noble Kalpa. All those enlightened, highest accomplished Bhiksus, Buddhists, even exhibiting supernormal abilities, are just achieving the Bodhisattva Bhumis accordingly. One Bhiksu achieved Bhumi level 8th, well-known said to be Ch'an Master Puan (1115-1169CE). There's no English info yet for him, English info has very tiny of the Chinese tradition. He belonged to the Lin Ji Zong (Rinzai) lineage, the 13th. For achieving 8th Bhumi, that Bodhisattva has penetrated the mystery of Dharani therefore is able to cite his own Mantra. Traditionally monastery will chant this Mantra during month of cleansing, to drive away bugs and insects, called Puan Mantra. He also made it as the Guqin melody. There is another Bhiksu called Zhigong (418-514CE), also achieved very high Bhumi surpassing material constrains but it's almost a standard practice for this type that he acted like a mad monk to conceal his identity (a Bodhisattva with advance Bhumi) in order to not to cause disturbance to society; or like Monk Budai (ceased 917CE), all these superior Buddhists will not make claim to the ordinary people who they are, not to say claiming as a Buddha, that's the Chinese tradition.
(ii) To be a Samyaksambuddha (achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi) one must receive mark (授記) from previous Samyaksambuddha. Then there will be many many lives spent as Bodhisattva. In Buddha Shakyamuni's case, he received the mark from Buddha Dīpankara. The Theravadin's interpretation of Samyaksambuddha is incorrect, at least I read from this forum. Their interpretation mixed it the same as a Pratyekabuddha. Saying it meant self-awaken is not correct, for Buddha always learns from previous Buddhas - so are we here learning as well, Buddha has teachers; also self-awaken is not a sufficient factor, he must be marked by the previous Sam. Buddha he will be another Sam. Buddha. This is another reason why Lotus Sutra must exist and completely making sense. On the contrary, those traditions missing this Sutra or the like is missing out very important teachings - traditions with incomplete teachings. Yet those who attack the Lotus Sutra, either they held hidden agenda, or needed illumination.
(iii) Due to the above understanding, anyone claimed to be a Buddha, a living Buddha, a reincarnation of a Buddha, a next Buddha, demonstrating supernormal abilities to elicit followers, a Maitreya herein, a Maitreya to be... etc. they are fraudulent. Yet there're not lack of examples throughout history.
b) How do Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya when there are son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi?
This was my puzzle too, when I just began my learning. I would have to declare that since I'm not following the Vajrayana tradition although I appreciate certain teachings found values in them also many historical great masters held my respect to, my answer should be regarded solely as personal opinion, derived from materials I studied only.
(i) I would sum up your referring only to the Tibetan Buddhism of the Zhügu (Living-Buddha, Tulku, reincarnation of a master) tradition. While I think it's possible the Buddhas could manifest their Nirmānakāya(s), but too many of those claims how many of them are real?
(ii) For Tibetan Buddhism, the undeniable fact is, that their religion and politics interwoven, hence, social status needed to establish for politican-monk. Historically, there're major schisms between the traditional Bon and Buddhism, and their merging and interfering. Very little is talked about, that during Tang Dynasty, Princess Wénchéng (628?-640CE) was granted to King Songtsän Gampo of Tibet, she took with her Bhiksus and Daoists, and scrolls1 of both schools. One of the Buddha Shakyamuni statues in Tibet today is reputedly said to be bought by her there. Also marked beginning the flourishing of Tibetan Buddhism; though there were Bhiksus coming directly from India before or after. From what I studied, Maitreya Buddha is not often focused, while Padmasambhava (?700?CE) was worshiped and also regarded the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. Padmasambhava appeared appro. 100 years after Wencheng's time, teaching Tantra, during the reign of Trisong Detsen (742-797CE). All these... serve quite a sound background and motive for claiming of reincarnation/continuation of certain established power player.
(iii) From here on, the emphasis of achieving Buddha-hood differs. Tibetan emphasizes on achieving Buddha-hood in one life-time, or maximum 7 lives, by practicing Tantra Yoga, with cultivation of merits/ Bodhicitta (Bodhicitta has many meanings too, not just about cultivation of the heart). One of the key methods is by "yoga-ing" (synchronizing) with the Guru, or the Yidam, so that one could acquire the same attributes of the Guru/Yidam, or the Guru can transfer his own achievement directly to the student... I'm still puzzling about how to discern these teachings, though I glean many useful knowledge from them. Up to this moment, I found that many of the evolved teachings (purely my own opinion) can be traced back to the (Chinese Mahayana2) Sutras, yet it's evolved, see? Just like many ignorant critics criticizing the Brahma Net Sutra of promoting self-immolation advocating burning oneself's fingers, body etc... even in the Chinese Buddhist community, they thought this so-called burning is a burning by the fire! Yet the disconnected interpretation could result in evolved teaching.
As in this case, one put aside the Maitreya prophecy, instead acknowledged there the Zhugu/Living-Buddha.

Footnotes:
1. Scrolls in Chinese would be needed to translate into Tibetan, I assumed, hence evolved teaching from disconnected interpretation during translation. Example, when studying the Madhyamaka, since most of the English translations are based on Tibetan version, or so-called Sanskrit version, many of the analogies were incomplete/nonsensical, almost illegible, indicated these not only the translators' problem, could also be in the source texts. Yet such problem doesn't exist in the Chinese version of Kumarajiva's. Hence, it's logical to infer that the Tibetan is translated from Chinese, or Sankrit translated from Chinese then to Tibetan. Anyhow, the surviving versions Chinese is the oldest.
2. The translation of Sutras from Sanskrit (it's a generalized term since the ancient Chinese regarded all those such as Prakrit, Siddham... etc in one major group, called 梵語/Brahma Language) to Chinese was the most professional and under strictest rules, with large league often composed by more than 3000 Bhiksus/intellectuals, leading by great translators, such as Kumarajiva, Xuanzhang, Paramārtha3... etc. Since the Chinese language has highly modular capacity many Buddhist etymologies were created, that not only authentically transmitted the meaning, also enriched the Chinese vocabulary. Famous examples like: Tathagata = 如來, 12 Nidanas = 12 因緣, Vijnana = 識, Citta = 心... etc.
3. There is misleading writing in Wikipedia on Mahāsāṃghika4 quoting Paramartha said about how the Mahayana Sutras came about, that is completely a fabrication hidden under unknown agenda. What Paramartha left are just Sutras/Sastras translated, there's no record of his direct own words, how possible that Wikipedia amateur author is able to quot something that doesn't exist? Nevertheless, there is huge effort behind certain entity to promote what so-called Early Buddhism and sticking on Mahayana many different hats.
4. General accepted account of the schism in the 2nd Buddhist Council was initiated by the Elders who wanted to add more rules to the Vinaya. The sect who were the majority kept the original Vinaya without altering it since the Buddha's passing away was Mahāsāṃghika, school carried Mahayana teachings.

I think the Theravada tradition mainly goes for the free availability of the Dhamma to sentient beings with access to reason. The Sakyan Buddha certainly set out on the same path as a Pratyekabuddha - the quest for the cessation of suffering - and attained it when he reached right knowledge and right release. But he became a Buddha when he decided to teach. And whilst a path to Buddha-hood in a few lives is reasonable, in this very life, within the confines of an already established Sangha, you can't be designated as a discoverer of the path.

@Ilya Grushevskiy I respect Theravada as long as they keep to their own teaching... some people need that type of teaching. And Buddha surely has many gateways for many different people. It's well known in Chinese there 84000 ways but all are doors to the same pagoda. Yet The Sakyan Buddha certainly set out on the same path as a Pratyekabuddha... this understanding is incorrect. Buddha Shakyamuni never is a Pratyekabuddha, a Pratyekabuddha is also the completion of enligthenment quest. If you ended as Pratye, then Pratye you are, that's it. ...One will need to study the Sutras to understand.

Certainly there are a multitude of angles from which to approach the Dhamma! There are conditions that both a Pratyekabuddha and a Samyaksambuddha both satisfy (imo :) ) - both arise only when Buddhas are not present and both follow a path not uncovered by others. There is a difference in that a Buddha chose to teach out of compassion. If, as Nagarjuna says, the Buddha is a conditioned existence, then conceptualizing the idea is still resting your mind on conditionality.

@IlyaGrushevskiy yeah. i really enjoy all Nagarjuna's writings, he is so coool... i mean, cool, really :). his Madhyamaka Chapter 13 the ending verse:  若復見有空 諸佛所不化, my still-need-improvement translation is: If one then instead by Emptiness taken in, all Buddhas none but helpless could regard him. I think that was so humourous and sarcastic in such a serious Sastra he said someone is "helpless" ~

if you haven't read about his life story, you should @IlyaGrushevskiy. i like another story about how he converted a thief... knowing the thief wanted to steal his jeweled alms-bowl waiting in the courtyard for him to sleep, he threw the bowl out from the window before laying down in a ruined temple...

i wonder what buddhism has made of e.g. neoplatonist magic. there is a difference, i recall a cynical christian acquaitence complaining about a church, claiming "we have jesus". well, buddhists "have" nirvana, i think so

@IlyaGrushevskiy I was incorrect you were correct, that a Prat. Bud. can then later, if criteria met, realize Sam. Bud.-hood. I just read yesterday, about Mahākāśyapa was in the eon past a Prat. hence he was able to enter endless 9th Dhyana called Nirodha-Samapatti among Buddha's disciples. In Lotus Sutra he was marked will be a Sam. Bud. Yet in many cases Buddha discouraged to aspire for Prat but for Sam. Bud., a Bud. like him. I think it's like set out the goal to be a PhD., or just an university degree. If the 1st, even by circumstance you ended up with a degree, e.g., due to financial...

... issue, yet you will continue your pursuit when conditions allowed. However, if your goal is degree, then degree you are. Because the aspiration will be the seed planted in your consciousness, when the criteria met, there it comes to fruition. If you read the correctly translated Mahayana Sutras many words are describing what is like to be a Buddha... many are really incomprehensible but just left you in wondrous awe - then thinking: amazing, if I am, I know these - that's planting the seed... for Prat. or Sam. you may read my other post.

@user3293056 not really got your question, but i think this is the answer: Buddhism sees magic not magic, it's natural ability of human, the ability is hindered due to the Five Poisons (Chinese Mahayana incl. arrogant/self-aggrandizing 慢, and disbelief (not whole-heartedly carrying out action) 疑). therefore no one is superior than any one in the ultimate sense, no jesus, no god. some ch'an flocks go to the extreme saying "see buddha kill buddha" 見佛殺佛 - but don't take the words face value ;)

I personally see the intention to teach, at the level of Prat. Buddha to manifest very rarely - it's not a simple truth to see after all, especially in the old world with the charm of mysticism. It makes sense to aspire to Buddhahood - a Buddha only rarely appears, and the most efficient use of the circumstance is to get as many people as possible to become Buddha. But such analysis misses impermanence for me too much - cessation is the first aspiration, what conditions one finds oneself facing in that future time of cessation is for that time.

@user3293056 There is no meta-divine, no 'One' from which a construct such as magic could manifest. Experience is dependently originated in Buddhism. In more modern language, it is intrinsically observer dependent (if accurate prediction of experience is what is desired). Nibbana is not Buddhist, it is the logical as well as scientific limit to experience. The Copernican principle did as much for humanity, without it even realizing the implications.

@IlyaGrushevskiy Freedom (自在) is more lethal than cessation... anyway, one puts on the right shoes fitting his foot-size, that's the cool ;)


text:
Is 'impermanence' skillful means?
Is 'impermanence' skillful means?
Wikipedia's definition of "Skillful means" says:

The implication [of skillful means] is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to the true realization in a similar way.

And of Impermanance:

The doctrine asserts that all of conditioned existence, without
  exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant". All temporal
  things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a
  continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction.

I think that, for some Mahayana schools, everything is skillful means. So is the doctrine of impermanence "skillful means" too?
I am looking for an answer which:

Says yes or no (and explains why)
References a sastra or sutra (if there is one) which claims or implies this answer
Preferably, also, explains what (if any) bearing that may have to understanding any other doctrine: such as anatta; voidness; or the buddha-nature.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

See this topic on Meta to discuss whether this question can be reopened, and/or how to improve it.

still getting downvotes! i'm sorry it's not helpful for you

Well in one sense impermanence is ultimately true. In the other sense though it's just a concept, an idea, used to make a point. The objective of the point is to preempt grasping for things as if they were permanent, and the purpose of non-grasping is prevention of suffering. But even prevention of suffering is merely one of many motives that leads a person to enlightenment, other motive for example being perfection or conceit. In this sense everything is just a skillful mean inasmuch as it pushes some people in the right direction.

Yes you have practice Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta in skilful means. Basically this applies to all teaching of Buddha.
Reference:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/pushinglimits.html

Not all kind of 'impermanence' can be seen als 'skillful means', just the path, leading beyond 'insecurity' counts as 'skillful means'.
Useful Essay: The Essence of the Dhamma and for "wordily" issues Wisdom over Justice
As for the case where some Mahayana schools, say, everything is skillful means, here it seems that other views have been addopted, reminding on deterministical assuming of cause and effect.
A talk and explaining, direct on the topic, here:

The Integrity (good means) of Emptiness, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2006; 10pp./30KB)
Much has been written about the Buddhist concept of emptiness — in particular, that it refers to a metaphysical principle of the absence of any inherent existence. In this essay the author points out that this notion has very little to do with what the Buddha himself actually said about emptiness. In fact, the Buddha's teachings on emptiness are of a fundamentally practical nature, having everything to do with how to choose your actions with care and how to relate to their results with wisdom.

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

I think you're answering your own question. I think one's understanding of skillful means ought to include the understanding that what is true for one is not true for all. What is true for a man is not true for all man. So impermenance or this or that specific doctrine may for you personally not apply or rather, may not hold truth for you to gleam or learn from.
I dare to suggest that if there are those who say 'everything is skillful means' that this is so for a reason, one perhaps that does not concern you personally as ur character or whoever you were before was able to get here because of how you understood Dharma before.
This just means that the truth of one doctrine may not be applicable to who you were before waking up. Wasn't your understanding of impermenance at the time before you woke up integral to your attainment? If it changes after the fact is not so important? If it were changed how would sentient beings get to where you got when you woke up?
Buddha Nature is a funny term because it can really only be understood if one is enlightened. It's definition exists in time not space.