text:
What happens if a monk is called for jury duty?
Is it possible for a monk to be called for jury duty in the U.S.A.? If so, does the Buddhist religion prevent them from taking part int he judicial process, as it involves passing judgment on others? Furthermore, would it be considered an offense for a lay person to be a member of a jury that had to decide on a death penalty case?

Generally speaking, if you are called to serve on a jury for a death penalty case you are asked if you object to the death penalty.  If you answer in the affirmative you will (usually) be excused from serving on that jury.

I live in Canada and the death penalty was abolished in the late 1960's. So no problem there, but the Ahimsa question still arises.

There is another question on here about whether or not a buddhist can harm another person https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7767/471 it claims that the buddha said that judicial action wasn't blameworthy.
So you could get away with saying that taking part in judicial action was not blameworty, but if it was me, I would have great difficulty in judging whether or not they had actually committed the crime. And it would be upsetting to discover that they were innocent but my vote was for guilty.

How can it happen that one having left home would still have such duty?
Actually, and that is a serious matter, most countries do not let people go fort, is unknown for them. My person does not know how western monks generally manage such, staying citizens and leaving home: how should that work in accordiance with Dhamma-Vinaya?
Furthermore, would it be considered an offense for a lay person to be a member of a jury that had to decide on a death penalty case?
Sure, to the amout of deed, and it's the kamma of killing if agree by thoughts, signs or deeds.
(Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange, trade or entertainment but for release from this wheel)

As a monk one should not involve one self with govement, law and lay peoples activities other than at a spiritual advisory capacity inline with the Dhamma and Vinaya.
So getting onself excused is the best option. There is also a further karmic consiquance if the one gives or endorse a guilty verdict.


text:
Diagnose: Samatha practice led to an urge to contract PC muscle, and pleasant vibrations resulted
During the last part of a concentration exercise (focusing eyes on a point between eyebrows) I felt a need to contract my Pubococcygeus muscle. During contraction I was feeling some vibration in my left wrist. What was that? It was nice vibration while my mind was clear.

DISCLAIMER: It isn't that such phenomenons don't occur during Buddhist meditation, but typically such bodily phenomenons are not emphasized in most Buddhist traditions, and thus Buddhists lack the vocabulary. Tibetan Tantra practice is an exception, but that's because it derives a lot of its vocabulary and practices from tantric yoga. The subtle body is viewed in Buddhism as personified impermanence.
From your description it appears to be a spontaneous Mula Bhandha. Like sneezing or coughing, spontaneous yogic postures are natural bodily occurrences, and are nothing to be wary of. They are triggered by conditions. For example, we sneeze in response to being in a room full of dust, similarly, when there are certain subtle energy manifestations in the body that are in need of correction, the body makes use of such locks or yoga mudras.

Image source: http://sequencewiz.org/2014/09/10/mula-bandha/
Without knowing more details about the quality and nature of vibration you felt, it would be hard to say for sure, but it sounds like Piti / Sukha. The clear mind you mention is likely the mind born of seclusion.
You can read more about Jhana factors by searching the web, but here's a helpful summary. Also see a similar question on this site.
I'd recommend gaining reasonable perfection in either Hatha Yoga meditation, or in Buddhist meditation. Unless you have strong reasons for doing so, dabbling with both at the same time can be unproductive.

Thank you for answering. Should we also close the question as being off-topic i.e. unrelated to Buddhism?

I'm not sure, since this is partly about piti / sukha. In any case, I've experienced such bhandhas during vipassana and struggled to find Buddhist texts that explain them.

FWIW, Buddhism lacking a vocabulary for this sort of thing has not stopped us from discussing it in the past. For example, there's 1 question and 9 answers that mention "kundalini" on this site - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=kundalini

@Buddho, sorry, but does "Has anyone experienced contraction of the PC muscle during (samatha) meditation" mean spontaneous? Cuz for me it was like urge and i just satisfied it.

Yes, but it was an urge that was pleasurable to give in, so I'd classify it as spontaneous - usually that's how Bandhas and asanas manifest - whereas mudras are more spontaneous like sneezes. It's another thing that there's only a miniscule difference since these bandha urges occur during stages of meditation when normal urges like sneezes are controllable.

I mean it was spontaneous urge, but not spontaneous contraction (like in question). So I experienced not contraction itself but urge and then contracted muscle. In other part I agree.

@ar7max I've edited the question to make it clearer in Buddhist terms, please roll back or modify if I've misrepresented what you intended to ask. Thanks.

@Buddho, thank you, question is clear and correct enough for me.

@ChrisW, I vote it is definitely related to Buddhism. Probably most long-time practitioners of meditation have experienced things like this.

@Adamokkha how about short-time? It was third time for me

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does "empirical evidence" challenge "scriptural authority"?
In his talk titled, Science at the Crossroads, the Dalai Lama said,

On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be.

With specific reference to the last line: in the "Buddhist investigation of reality", when does empirical evidence "triumph over" or even challenge, scriptural authority?
Is the Dalai Lama's point of view confirmed or contradicted by other points of view in the scriptures, or in the talks and writings of recent Gurus?

Just to be clear here, you are referring to "empirical evidence" in the same manner that the Dali Lami is, yes? E.g. as first hand experience through the practice, not empirical evidence as it's thought of in a scientific context.

I do not know why people are downvoting this, it is a good question...

@Ryan - Yes, correct. As first-hand experience.

I think the Dalai Lama is making a tactical retreat on issues he doesn't care about. He isn't claiming he's a modern secular Buddhist. I'm looking for a Donald Lopez quote but can't find one. Anyhow, Lopez often writes about how west projects more progressive & (western) Age of Englightenment ideas on the Buddhism than really are there.
When I was in uni doing economics, one of the professor's there was keenly interested in epistemology and theories of truth. There are a great many theories of truth and they vary from community from community-- what passes as true among economists, doesn't for Christians and so on.
So for Buddhists, some theories of truth I can see:
Personal experience. This is the theory of truth that is recounted in the traditional life story of the Buddha. He sat under a tree, saw things as they really are (and you can too).
Personal experiences don't settle arguments & disagreements among people and early Buddhist knew this as well.
Buddhavacana. This is truth via authority. The Buddha said it, it is true. This is moderated by the phrase "what ever is well said is Buddhavana" (And a blog post that says even that isn't as progressive as it sounds.)
Epistimology Depends on Which Buddhist Organization
The theory of truth is all wrapped up in organizational matters. An organization, especially one whose product is a set of teachings, needs to present a coherent face to its customers. We can't rationally expect an organization to be self sabotaging when it comes to projecting a message to the community-- the message has to be coherent to gain new followers, donations and so on. No one joins a group because all of their members have radically opposed views found as a result of idiosyncratic personal decisions about what is true. The join because they got the message and agree with most of it.
To appeal to scripture you first have to figure out what group you are in and what texts are authoritative. That is why answering these questions without a tag indicating what school makes it hard to answer. In the Dalai Lama's world, his gurus, the Dalai Lama's expriences are authoritative, probably followed by texts from the Gulugpa tradition. Texts in general are not authoritative. The texts themselves, again depending on the tradition, will have in them some sort of epistimilogical claims (a theory of truth and assertions on why this text meets that standard of truth). In Vajrayana and Zen, things are true because of lineage and something was said by a teacher in that lineage going back to the historical Buddha. In other schools of Buddhism, lineage isn't important, the internal qualities of the text are, e.g. Tien Tai/Nichirenism, which posit the text is authoritative-- period (i.e. doesn't matter who said it or how it came about).
Visionary Experience. Mahayana writers expanded truth to include visions seen in dreams and meditation.  In the Avatamsaka, we have what appears to be the name of the monk who had the experience that provides the basis for the sutra, Dharmamati. Ref Nattier. In otherwords, the sutra said it was legit because Dharmamati had a vision of Buddhas which preached this doctrine. Later authors just followed the style and form of earlier sutras and attributed it to the historical Buddha or a celestial Buddha.
Dealing with Conflicting Evidence
When things contradict evidence, we get the theory of two truths, where there is a conventional truth and an "absolute" truth.
In organizations, the precepts, usually a few of the 6th to 10th precepts and many of the minor precepts will talk about intragroup harmony. It is more important for the organization to endure than for an argument to be settled. People are encouraged to defer to others based on rank regardless of who is wrong (the rules about the nuns having to defer to male monks regardless to the male monk being wrong on a matter is an example). The point isn't that they don't care about what is true, the point is that a rational organization that doesn't want to self destruct has to do something to maintain harmony. It isn't rational to expect an organization  to allow and encourage a lot of heterodoxy.

"To appeal to scripture you first have to figure out what group you are in and what texts are authoritative. That is why answering these questions without a tag indicating what school makes it hard to answer." Touche' !

Extremely valid point: "It is more important for the organization to endure than for an argument to be settled. People are encouraged to defer to others based on rank regardless of who is wrong (the rules about the nuns having to defer to male monks regardless to the male monk being wrong on a matter is an example). The point isn't that they don't care about what is true, the point is that a rational organization that doesn't want to self destruct has to do something to maintain harmony. It isn't rational to expect an organization to allow and encourage a lot of heterodoxy."

Thank you for a frank, well-reasoned and very satisfying reply. Although I feel that you haven't taken the question head-on, I concede that it may not be possible to do so without reference to which school of thought we are talking about. Given the level of abstraction contained in the question, I think you have gone to the heart of the question. Please accept a deep bow from me, Matthew Martin.

I'll start this with my analysis of the text, then your questions and my answers at the end.

The following is the Dalai Lama's point of view, as explained in the article you referenced:

Science at the Crossroads
  By Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama
      This article is based on a talk given by the Dalai Lama at the annual
      meeting of the Society for Neuroscience on November 12, 2005 in Washington DC.

He (Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama) as a scientist:

....The specific areas of science I have explored most over the years
  are subatomic physics, cosmology, biology and psychology. For my
  limited understanding of these fields I am deeply indebted to the
  hours of generous time shared with me by Carl von Weizsacker and the
  late David Bohm both of whom I consider to be my teachers in quantum
  mechanics, and in the field of biology, especially neuroscience, .....
  ....which initiated the Mind and Life conferences that began in 1987
  at my residence in Dharamsala, India. These dialogues have continued
  over the years and in fact the latest Mind and Life dialogue concluded
  here in Washington just this week.

Him as a religionist:

..Since the primary motive underlying the Buddhist investigation of
  reality is the fundamental quest for overcoming suffering and
  perfecting the human condition, the primary orientation of the
  Buddhist investigative tradition has been toward understanding the
  human mind and its various functions. The assumption here is that by
  gaining deeper insight into the human psyche, we might find ways of
  transforming our thoughts, emotions and their underlying propensities
  so that a more wholesome and fulfilling way of being can be found. It
  is in this context that the Buddhist tradition has devised a rich
  classification of mental states, as well as contemplative techniques
  for refining specific mental qualities.
..Some might wonder "What is a Buddhist monk doing taking such a deep
  interest in science? What relation could there be between Buddhism, an
  ancient Indian philosophical and spiritual tradition, and modern
  science? What possible benefit could there be for a scientific
  discipline such as neuroscience in engaging in dialogue with Buddhist
  contemplative tradition?"

The two trends - a part, and a whole (a soul, and a stream):

... both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any
  notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being,
  as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental
  substratum of reality.

The Goal - (Paradigm Shift):

...complex world of inner subjective experience that we call the
  mind...the effects of mental training, such as simple mindfulness
  practice on a regular basis or the deliberate cultivation of
  compassion as developed ....that mental practice can effect observable
  synaptic and neural changes in the brain ....the deliberate
  cultivation of compassion can lead to a radical shift in the
  individual's outlook,

What is Paradigm shift? World and beyond the world (Change in Outlook):

...I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific
  inquiry. Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics" that
  embrace the key ethical principles, such as compassion, tolerance, a
  sense of caring, consideration of others, and the responsible use of
  knowledge and power - principles that transcend the barriers between
  religious believers and non-believers, and followers of this religion
  or that religion.

Problem domain - (world within):

..do individuals have a fixed capacity to regulate their emotions and
  attention or, as Buddhist tradition argues, their capacity for
  regulating these processes are greatly amenable to change suggesting
  similar degree of amenability of the behavioral and brain systems
  associated....

Solution domain - (beyond the world):

..modern neuroscience has developed a rich understanding of the brain
  mechanisms that are associated with both attention and emotion.
  Buddhist contemplative tradition, given its long history of interest
  in the practice of mental training, offers on the other hand practical
  techniques for refining attention and regulating and transforming
  emotion...the cultivation of a compassionate heart and the cultivation
  of deep insights into the nature of reality, which are referred to as
  the union of compassion and wisdom.

The difficulty is searching for solutions within the world; but the solution is beyond the world. So only the path can be shown, not the end result. (It should be taste and see).
Path? or Paths? (Or suits?):

...in its traditional context, the term for meditation is bhavana (in
  Sanskrit) or gom (in Tibetan).

..The assumption here is that by

gaining deeper insight into the human psyche, we might find ways of
  transforming our thoughts, emotions and their underlying propensities
  so that a more wholesome and fulfilling way of being can be found...
At the heart of these meditation practices lie two key techniques, the
  refinement of attention and its sustained application on the one hand,
  and the regulation and transformation of emotions on the other...
Broadly speaking, there are two categories of meditation practice -
  one focusing on stilling the mind and the other on the cognitive
  processes of understanding. The two are referred to as (i) stabilizing
  meditation and (ii) discursive meditation.

Who has gone?

... insofar as empirical facts are concerned, facts must remain facts,
  no matter how one may choose to describe them. Whatever the truth
  about the final nature of consciousness - whether or not it is
  ultimately reducible to physical processes - I believe there can be
  shared understanding of the experiential facts of the various aspects
  of our perceptions, thoughts and emotions.

So Now the Q & A.

With specific reference to the last line: in the "Buddhist investigation of reality", what are the instances where empirical
  evidence "should triumph over" (or even challenge) scriptural
  authority?

Traditional cosmology ( IF found in ) ancient Buddhist texts. But It
     cannot compare cosmology and Buddhist 31 planes each other.

Are there alternative/contradictory points of view in the scriptures, or in the talks and writings of recent Gurus, to the Dalai
  Lama's point of view (i.e. wherein it is posited that scriptural
  authority should prevail over empirical evidence)?

There is no  Scriptural authority  in Buddhism. (As shown in "Kalama
    Sutta"). Empirical evidence and other facts found in ancient Buddhist texts are
    used as "Uppaya". Like "finger" to point the "Moon".

If there is no scriptural authority in Buddhism, what does one call all those ancient writings translated from Pali, without which any discussion about Buddhism is dismissed as being merely someone's opinion?

"Traditional cosmology ( IF found in ) ancient Buddhist texts. But It cannot compare cosmology and Buddhist 31 planes each other." Kindly elaborate this and make it easy to understand what you are saying.

@KrishnarajRao  kindly See these explanations.

You May find your answer here.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

Nope, I fail to see how this material addresses the question. Could you please elaborate?

@KrishnarajRao refer this it says "Even famous teachers can have wrong views"

Please elaborate. I read those few paragraphs, but still failed to see how they address the question.

@KrishnarajRao This answer is not directly answered your question. Tho it is leads to  final , i add another intermediate solution.

Scientists can't all run down to the lab and analyze this experiential evidence firsthand. They can't stand around it, pass tools back and forth and tweek it until they can throw it into some supercollider somewhere...
He must mean evidence found out in the laboratory that is one's own mind and body. This evidence can only be known firsthand by the individual who experiences it and nobody else.
...This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be.
This seems to be a very vague statement. What kind of empirical evidence is needed to throw out a given venerated scripture? Who is having the experience, one or many meditators?

Who said anything about "throwing out" any venerated given scripture? Those were not my words.

They are my words that interpret the Dali Lamas words. What does he mean by "triumph over" then? I should have said "What happens when a scripture is triumphed over?" perhaps.

I believe "triumph over" may mean superseded in that particular instance. For instance, if ones experience indicates that jumping off a cliff is likely to injure you, then that experience "triumphs over" any scripture, buddhist or otherwise, which may tell you to have faith and jump. That doesn't mean you throw out the scripture, it only means that when it comes to jumping off cliffs, you decide not to obey this scripture.

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


text:
Unconscious intention?
Sometimes we do thing intentionally sometimes unintentionally. But is there such thing such as unconscious intention in Buddhism (Theravada)?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

No such thing! Consciousness(Vinnana) is present in all Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara. Intention falls under Sankhara.

But unwholesome thought sometimes appear without intention. That is kamma, but without intention?

Every unwholesome thought has intention. It is the 8th thought moment of a single thought which can have a maximum of 17 thought moments.
Read the Abhidhamma citta section  for more details

We may be fooled into thinking there is unconscious intention, because we are ignorant in some moments of the nature of dependant arising of that moment, but in reality every moment is conditional arising, and intention is a component of such arising.
If we were to observe deeply every moment in life, and trace the origins of every thought and impulse, it will firmly convince us from our own experience that this is how it works at all times. Of course, initially this may only be possible on a retreat or while in meditation.
The Dhammapada begins by stating this,

Manopubbangama dhamma1
  manosettha manomaya manasa ce padutthena2
  bhasati va karoti va
  tato nam dukkhamanveti cakkamva vahato padam.
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have
  mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an
  evil mind, 'dukkha'3 follows him just as the wheel follows the
  hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

manopubbangama dhamma: All mental phenomena have Mind as their forerunner in the sense that Mind is the most dominant, and it is the
  cause of the other three mental phenomena, namely, Feeling (vedana),
  Perception (sanna) and Mental Formations or Mental Concomitants
  (sankhara). These three have Mind or Consciousness (vinnana) as their
  forerunner, because although they arise simultaneously with Mind they
  cannot arise if Mind does not arise. (The Commentary)
manasa ce padutthena (Verse 1) and manasi ce pasannena (Verse 2): Manasa here means intention or volition (cetana); volition leads one
  to the performance of volitional actions, both good and evil. This
  volition and the resultant actions constitute kamma; and kamma always
  follows one to produce results. Cakkhupala's blindness (Verse 1) was
  the consequence of his having acted with an evil intention in a
  previous existence and Matthakundali's happy existence in Tavatimsa
  celestial world (Verse 2) was the result of his mental devotion
  (manopasada) to the Buddha.
dukkha: In this context, dukkha mens suffering, or physical or mental pain, misfortune, unsatisfactoriness, evil consequences, etc.,
  and rebirth in the lower planes of existence or in the lower strata of
  human society if born in the human world.

Certain actions like bowel movements, breathing, beating of the heart, etc. happen without consciousness. Also perhaps some limited form of physical and vocal action. These actions are morally neutral.
Also when you are in bhav’aṅga state (deep sleep) you are not conscious. Say you are a heavy snorer, then in this state this is unconscious action.
Also there can be muscle spasm which also can be unconscious.
Any action which followings any motivation either habitual (reactive) or premeditated will be conscious. This aspect is stressed in @Buddho's answer.
For a more detailed discussion see: The Unconscious by Piya Tan.


text:
Is eating an apple from a tree planted right next to a granddad's tomb not permitted?
Suppose A's granddad died many years ago and was buried in the back yard.
Right next to his tomb, grows a very fruitful apple tree. There are many delicious apples on that tree.
Is it ok to eat these apples?
There is a very high chance, that the tree obtained energy from the tomb. When the granddad's corpse decayed, it released a lot of biological substances that are good for the tree.

Off topic? Or is there some connection to Buddhist practice that I am missing here?

In Buddism, is it allowed?

@Tom, did you hear or read somewhere that this act was not permitted? If we have more context surrounding your question, we can provide better answers. Then we can also edit the question so it helps other people with the same question.

Yes.                   It is ok.

But then A eats his granddad???

No. Just an apple

These bodies are all made from the same material that is being used and reused many times over. The matter is not your granddad. What matters is form, configuration, information, causation, relationships.

Sorry for the lack of reference I'm on my phone! I'll get back to you @tom in a while :)


text:
Preliminaries (common and uncommon) in Tibetan Buddhism
What are the 3 commom and 3 uncommon preliminaries in Tibetan Buddhism?

I would suggest removing '3' from your question description above. My answer to your question reveals why :)

There are many Buddhist lineages in Tibet and all of these have variations on what they consider to be preliminary practices or ngondro. So in order to answer your question generally you have to look for preliminary practices that are common to all of the main lineages - Kagyu, Sakya, Nyingma and Gelugpa.
The 'common' or 'ordinary' or 'outer' practices are generally considered to be the Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind or the Four Reminders. These are more philosophical musings that prepare the mind and motivate the person to continue their practice:

Difficulty of obtaining a free and favorable human life.
Contemplation of impermanence and death.
Contemplation of cause and effect (karma).
Contemplation of endless cycle of suffering (samsara).

A poem by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche on the Four Reminders:

Joyful to have
  such a human birth,
  difficult to find,
  free and well-favored.
But death is real,
  comes without warning.
  This body will be a corpse.
Unalterable
  are the laws of karma;
  Cause and effect
  cannot be escaped.
Samsara
  is an ocean of suffering,
  unendurable,
  unbearably intense.

It is in the uncommon or extraordinary or inner practices where there is great variability from tradition to tradition but the following are fairly common:

Taking refuge in the three Jewels - Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.
Developing Bodhicitta.
Vajrasattva practice and mandala offerings
Guru yoga.

These preliminary practices are considered essential before journeying into the intermediate and completion stages of Vajrayana which, traditionally, cannot be done without a qualified teacher.
Recommended reading - A Beginner's Guide to Tibetan Buddhism


text:
Can another being/thing be credited or blamed for causing your emotions?
CONTEXT: In everyday conversations, we often blame other things or persons for causing our positive or negative emotions. For example, people say things like, "That dog disturbs me by always barking", "My daughter angers me by disobeying me", "My computer makes me anxious because it hangs in the middle of my work", or "My son made me very happy by scoring good marks".
Quite often, people feel that they are not in control of their own emotions. They think and/or say things like, "How can I help being anxious/angry/sad while my boss/husband/neighbour/dog/computer stops behaving as he/she/it does?"
It is considered normal in daily life to put the onus of change on the external factor/person, and think along the lines of: "I will become happy after I get more money/better job/trendier smartphone" or "I will start talking calmly after my daughter-in-law stops back-answering me." In other words, if Condition A is fulfilled by someone or something else, I will become happy", or "If Condition B is fulfilled by the world around me, I will gain control over my anger/sadness/anxiety etc."
QUESTIONS: What does the Buddha and modern gurus say about:
1) Taking agency/responsibility for our state of mind and our behaviour? Where does agency/responsibility for our positive/negative emotions lie?
2) Taking the responsibility ourselves, or putting the responsibility on other things/persons/situations where we ourselves have no control?
3) On the correctness of saying to another person, "Unless you exercise right-speech or right-action, I am unable to exercise right-speech, right-intention and right-mindfulness?

If something upsets you, it is because you are delusional.
If something upsets someone else, it is because they are delusional.
If you want to avoid upsetting someone out of compassion then avoid the object of their delusional hatred, but if anyone claims that because the onus is on the other to avoid being upset that I can do whatever I want to, then they are probably lacking in compassion and empathy.
Finally, if you are trying to lay blame and your argument is that somebody or something is to blame, then clearly it is anger, ignorance or greed which is to blame for anger, ignorance or greed and neither the offender nor the offended is truly to blame. That said, the responsibility for fixing the corruption in themselves lies with them because no one else can clean the defilements for them.

@Ryan the Buddha also never admits to an absence of a self. And to confuse things further, the hot ball of iron is actually no hot ball of iron and that is why it is called a hot ball of iron.

Sam, we see what we want to see. You and I are daily ignoring most of the questions or answers on this forum, or other forums. So, if I were to take offence at a question that you just asked, it would be because of an effort that I made to spend some minutes reading and re-reading that question, so that I could take offence at some points. And then I took the effort to write a rebuttal, thinking about the various things that you wrote that offended me. And then I waited for your response so that I could spend more time reading and replying... and so on. Correct?

Buddhists use "delusional" in a non-standard or technical way: see e.g. Avidyā (Buddhism) on Wikipedia -- or is there another introduction to "delusional" which you'd prefer to reference instead?

KrishnarajRao That is exactly what I meant thank you. We all do live in our own mental universe. yes this delusional refers to the presence of mental defilements. It is not all that non-standard either, delusional means the presence of imaginary constructs which are harmful which quite accurately portrays the intent.

I think it is worth clarifying what "imaginary constructs" (and "delusion") might mean: for example because "all external stimuli, whether pleasant or unpleasant, are illusory" might be a (quite a common) misconception about Buddhism, and a simple view like "Nothing Exists" is missing something important.

There is a famous parable by a founder of Tibetan Buddhism guru Padmasabhava comparing Right Concentration / Attention with Lion's Gaze. Modern Tibetan Buddhism teacher ven. Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche explains:

Padmasambhava said that when a stick is thrown to a dog, the dog will chase the stick. A dog’s gaze follows the object, the stick. The lion gazes steadily at the source, the thrower. We need to look at our mind, the source of the emotion. An emotion like anger is the stick. The source hurling that emotion is our mind. It is the mind that projects. The source of our experience is our own mind.
Dzogchen [Buddhism] turns our gaze inward toward the source of experience, which is mind. Pristine mind is our lion's gaze.

According to my last teacher, the whole point of the above is to help us get out of "victim consciousness" and attain what he calls "master consciousness". Victim consciousness is when we blame our problems on other people or on the circumstances. Master consciousness is when we take ownership of everything that happens in our lives.
The flip side of the above is, if you are the one exercising the speech, you can't say "according to Buddha your mind is the source of your emotions, so I will say whatever I want, but the onus is on you to not get upset". Indeed, if that was the case, Buddha would only teach the non-attachment and not teach the Right Speech. But Buddha taught both. In all circumstances, the onus, according to Buddha's teaching, is always on us.

I feel your last paragraph relates to questions previously asked and answers previously given. I agree about the need for right-speech, but this argument nurtures the conditioned response that your right-thinking and mindfulness are dependent on my right speech. Are they? Most things on the internet would probably irritate me if I read them; so I gloss over them and ignore them. If you were genuinely disturbed by my propositions, maybe you would be ignoring them, and reading other things that please you. Possibly, 95% of the people on this forum are doing exactly that. No?

The Buddha does not admit to a self AFAIK, therefore the presumptions your question are based on don't have a great base to start on. However, conventionally , this can be said in regards to your question.

1) What does the Buddha say about agency for our state of mind and our behaviour? Where does agency for our positive/negative emotions lie?

Someone, having not followed and understood the Buddhas teaching, regards the hot ball of iron in their hand as themselves, not knowing to put it down, they create their own suffering. When someone offers them another Hot ball of iron, they gladly accept it, and when it burns their other hand, they blame that person for their suffering. It certainly isn't wholesome to offer to hand such a thing to someone else, but it is out of ignorance to the way things are that someone should choose to hold onto it.

"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.100.than.html

2) On whom (or where) does the onus/responsibility for changing a negative situation lie?

The solution for such suffering lies in following the teaching of the Buddha, following the Noble Eightfold Path, and developing wisdom and understanding into the nature of phenomenon and described in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta

“Bhikkhus, this is the direct path for the purification of beings [56], for the surmounting of sorrow and lamentation, for the disappearance of pain and grief, for the attainment of the true way, for the realisation of Nibbāna—namely, the four foundations of mindfulness.
      3. “What are the four? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. He abides contemplating feelings as feelings, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. He abides contemplating mind as mind, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. He abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. "

.

3) What do modern-day gurus say about taking the onus or alternatively, putting the onus on external agents, whether human or otherwise?

Many people say many things. Unless a teaching contains the Noble Eightfold Path, it will not produce noble disciples:

“Very well, reverend Sir,” the wanderer Subhadda replied to the Gracious One, and the Gracious One said this: “Wherever, Subhadda, the Noble Eightfold Path is not found in a Teaching and Discipline there a true ascetic is not found, there a second true ascetic is not found, there a third true ascetic is not found, there a fourth true ascetic is not found.

https://suttacentral.net/en/dn16

4) Is it correct to say to another person, "Unless you exercise right-speech, I am unable to have right-speech, right-intention and right-mindfulness?

No. see the answers to question 1 and 2

I accept your answer, Ryan. But I wish the scriptural references were more direct. May I request you to point us to the exact lines that address the question?

the suttas I linked address the questions :) I don't believe there's any imperative to restrain understanding to a single line. All of this reading is just conceptual in any case, no single line or paragraph or volume of knowledge will encapsulate the truth, at best it can point you to it. What the Buddha is telling you in these suttas I linked is to practice.

If anyone abuses you, hits you, throws stones at you or strikes you with a stick or a sword, you must put aside all worldly desires and considerations and think, ‘My heart will not be moved. I shall speak no evil words. I will feel no resentment but maintain kindness and compassion for all beings.’ You should think like this. M.I,126
Irrigators lead  the  water,  fletchers  bend  the  shaft,  carpenters  shape  the  wood,  the wise mold themselves.
Dhp.80
The  Buddha asked  Anuruddha  how  he  was  able  to  live in  harmony with  his  fellow monks and he replied; ‘I always consider what a blessing it is, what a real blessing, that I am living with such companions in the spiritual life. I think, speak and act with love towards them, both in public and in private. I always consider that I should put aside my own wishes and acquiesce to what they want, and then I do that. Thus we are many in body but one in mind.’
M.III,156


text:
Conventional versus Ultimate
People sometimes qualify their statements, by adding the word, "conventionally" — and people distinguish between Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca) versus Ultimate Truth (Paramattha Sacca).

When (historically) does this distinction begin: if the distinction is made in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, is there also doctrine like that in the Sutta Pitaka (and if not, do we know why not)?
This Wikipedia section says that the "two truths" distinction is not made in the suttas, though there are some "suttas of indirect meaning".
Is "ultimate" in some way better or more right than "conventional"? Or are they both mere views or descriptions of reality, more or less equal (like a left hand and a right hand) and it's important to select (perhaps, I guess, by using 'wisdom') whichever of the two may be the more appropriate?
Is it OK to regard them both as "views" instead of as "truths"? Is there an important difference between e.g. sacca, vacana, dhamma, and ditthi?
If/when/after people have made a distinction between "conventional" and "ultimate", do people subsequently try to recombine these views? I'm thinking of the Zen-like aphorism, "after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water": is that something to do with "two truths"? Does it imply a continuation of or a return to the conventional? Or does it differ/vary a lot from school to school?

I imagine these questions could be answered with a paragraph each; but please tell me if any of them need to be separate questions, to allow a longer or more detailed answer.

also see What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy?

The distinction goes back all the way to Buddha's students' original Maha-Sangha and its two sub-schools Bahushrutiya and Prajnaptivada. From Wikipedia:

According to Paramārtha, the Bahuśrutīya school was formed in order to fully embrace both "conventional truth" and "ultimate truth."

and

The Prajñaptivādins were early articulators of the two truths doctrine.

The relationship of the two truths is the main concern of Buddhist ontological tradition called "Madhyamaka". According to them, the "ultimate" that is defined in opposition to "conventional" is not the true ultimate. As you say, these two are mere views or descriptions of reality. The true "ultimate", they argue, is beyond all descriptions, and therefore complete and does not stand in opposition to anything (is all inclusive). One of the very many texts that elaborate on this point and its implications is Karmapa's commentary on an ancient little stanza known as The Cuckoo of Awareness.
As my Zen Master said, it is one thing if I explain this, and another thing if you get it yourself. Therefore I will leave this one unanswered.

Your question is tagged "Abhidhamma" and "Pāḷi Canon", so I am going to limit my answer to the Theravāda perspective. I am only going to answer the first part of the question. Please leave me a comment if you want me to answer the other parts of the question (I want to make sure that we are on the same wavelength before proceeding).
Here is an entry as part of Nyanatiloka’s Buddhist Dictionary:

paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desanā): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohāra-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti-satya). The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance with undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the Suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohāra-vacana).
It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Piṭaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammā). But also in the Sutta Piṭaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desanā), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhātu) or sense-bases (āyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhaṇa, q.v.) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it “would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc.”
It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohāra-sacca), being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes.
The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a Sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nītattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne (Tathāgata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25.
The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathāvatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka (s. Guide, p. 62). (App: vohāra).
The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff.
In Mahāyana, the Mādhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths.

In DN 9, you will find the quote, "[names] are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathāgata expresses himself but without grasping to them."
Regarding this verse, Thanissaro Bhikkhu makes the comment:

The Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea — which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism — that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be interpreted out of context.

Regarding this verse, Maurice Walshe makes the comment:

An important reference to the two truths referred in [the Dīgha Nikāya commentary] as 'conventional speech' (sammuti-kathā) and 'ultimately true speech' (paramattha-kathā). It is important to be aware of the level of truth at which any statements are made. In the [Majjhimma commentary to MN 5], the following verse is quoted (source unknown), 'Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: conventional and ultimate – no third can be. Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; words of ultimate significance are true in terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he who is skilled in this world’s speech can use it, and not lie.'

Here is my personal conjecture (this is my own assumption, I have not seen this anywhere else, so take it with a grain of salt). According to the Wikipedia page on “Atomism”, the idea of breaking things into “ultimate realities” arose in India around the time of the Buddha and was adopted by some of the Buddha’s “competitors” such as the Jains, Ājīvikas (followers of Makkhali Gosala) and Carvaka schools. My assumption is that Buddhist had to defend themselves in debates against these “competitors” and felt that the Buddha’s overlapping analysis of aggregates / bases / elements was not “robust” enough to counter the detailed ontological arguments put forth by the “competition”.
As a response, each Buddhist school created their own set of "ultimate realities". Just to give an indication of the differences between schools: the Theravāda school has 1 citta (arising in 89 or 121 combinations, Mental States), 52 cetasika, 28 rūpa and 1 unconditioned element. The Sarvāstivāda school had 1 citta, 60 cetasika, 11 rūpa and 3 unconditioned elements. The Sautrāntika school had 6 citta, 29 cetasika, 8 rūpa and 1 unconditioned element. The Yogācāra school had 8 citta, 75 cetasika, 11 rūpa and 6 unconditioned elements. Each of these schools used the same set of Suttas, but analyzed them in a different way, according to their own doctrines.
Second part of the question
In AN 4.94, the Buddha defined samatha as a process of steadying, settling, unifying and composing (saṇṭhapetabbaṁ, sannisādetabbaṁ, ekodi kātabbaṁ, samādahātabban) the mind. When discussing samatha, the Suttas do not specify an object or a type of object (concept or ultimate reality). Samatha is a process, irrespective of the object. The result of samatha is internal tranquility. Of course, the commentaries focus on the object of samatha.
The same sutta describes vipassanā as distinct seeing of things through higher wisdom. Vipassanā is described as viewing saṅkhārā, investigating saṅkhārā and distinctly seeing saṅkhārā. The object of vipassanā is saṅkhārā. In this context, saṅkhārā can be interpreted as being the three characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anattā). The result of vipassanā is the insight knowledges.
Concepts do not possess the three characteristics and are therefore not valid objects of vipassanā meditation. On the other hand, citta, cetasika and rūpa do possess the three characteristics and are therefore valid objects of vipassanā meditation.
So it is important to know the difference between conventional realities and ultimate realities to understand the teachings. It is also important to only use ultimate realities as the object of vipassanā meditation.

Re. the second part of the question, this paragraph in an article which is hyperlinked in Andrei's answer says that in Mahayana the "two truths" are characterized/named as "skillful means" and "wisdom". Assuming that's so, I think that terminology make it clear/clearer that both are worthwhile (whereas I thought that calling them "conventional" versus "ultimate" suggested that "ultimate" was better than "conventional", maybe that the conventional should be discarded, etc.).

Conventional truth:
This is a macro view in which we deal with compounded entities like you, me, Ananda. The language mode of teaching of the Sutta and Vinaya Pitaka takes this route2 and is as old as the formalising of the Tripitaka as we have it today.
On diving any concept into a more granular form (you have a dead cow and you cut out a pound of flesh then the flesh is no longer a cow and you break the flesh into its chemical this is not longer flesh) then the original meaning disappears.
Conventional truths arise from metal constructions. We construct so and so is Ananda but at a micro level there is only chain of thought moments arising based on a stimuli (Ārammana) at our sense doors. Any view arise though pondering hence is susceptible to further division and always and abstraction which will fall short of the reality at some degree. Wrong Views are ones which are completely divergent from reality. Even the Right View is still and abstraction constructed by the lower levels of building blocks as taught in the Abhidhamma.1
Ultimate truth
This is a micro view where we have divided mind, mental factors, material, nirvana into its most granular form where further divisibility is not possible. The language and teaching mode of the Abhidhamma Pitaka takes this route2.
Reconciliation between the two happen through Vipassana Meditation where start seeing things as they are. (Yathā Bhūta ñāna Dassana) You penetratingly see the constituents and the nature of the constituents or building blocks which create the mosaic in our mind as thoughts, views, cognitions, etc. - or how thoughts and concepts are create3. Also all human endeavors are based on these thought we create.

1

These two categoric.s, the pannatti and the paramattha, or the conceptual
  and the real, are said to be mutually exclusive and together exhaustive
  of the whole of the knowable (neyya-dhamma) Thus what is not
  paramattha is pannatti. Similarly whal is not pannatti is paramattha.
Hence the Abhidhamma makes the assertive statement:
  “ Besides the two categories of paramattha (the real) and pannatti
  (the conceptual), a third category does not exist. One who is skillful in
  these two categories does not tremble in the face o f other teachings”.

Source: THE THERAVĀDA ABHIDHAMMA - Its Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality by Y. KARUNADASA, p 49
2

The Sutta Pitaka is said to contain teachings mostly
  based on conventional terms {vohāra-desanā), because therein the Blessed
  One who is skilful in the use of conventions, has taught the doctrines with
  a preponderance of conventional term s. In contrast, the Abhidhamma
  Pitaka is said to contain teachings mostly based on paramattha-desanā
  because therein the Blessed One who is skilful in the use of absolute
  terms, has taught the doctrine with a preponderance of absolute terms.

Source: THE THERAVĀDA ABHIDHAMMA - Its Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality by Y. KARUNADASA, p 66
3

dependent on the diversity of elements, there arises the diversity of perceptions,
  dependent on the diversity of perceptions, there arises the diversity of thoughts;
  dependent on the diversity of thoughts, there arises the diversity of desires;
  dependent on the diversity of desires, there arises the diversity of passions;
  dependent on the diversity of passions, there arises the diversity of searching.

Source: Saññā Nānatta Sutta
This also can be further analyzed using an Abhidhamma as: sanna > vedana > sankhara (chetasika)

I suggest that a thorough account of the history of this distinction regarding language - the 'conventional' and 'ultimate' distinction - should take into account a rarely discussed sutta found in the Anguttara Nikaya: the KĀLAKARĀMA SUTTA.(AN.IV.24).
Ven. Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda Mahathera has a translation and commentary in his 'The Magic of the Mind.' Various other translations are available on the net.
The essential point, related to this thread, is that in that sutta the Buddha says that he knows all the things that humans know (for which, he obviously has conventional language).
Then he says something that modifies that statement quite radically; which, in summary, is as follows: "When [experiencing], a Tathāgata does not imagine an [experienced]; he does not imagine an [not-experienced]; he does not imagine a ‘possible-to-[experience]’;and he does not imagine an [experiencer]." This seems to indicate how he doesn't 'get caught' by conventional usage - he doesn't imagine entities in experience. So, the KĀLAKARĀMA SUTTA, appears to refer to two kinds of knowing. (They might both be necessary to live practically in the world.)
May all be safe, well and content.

Purely from a language perspective, usage of Ultimate Truth suggests a truth of a fundamental nature in relation to existence, or to the religion being discussed. This term may be used to describe a God-like quality such as Enlightenment, or an immutable law of nature. Ultimate Truths are thought to be of an esoteric nature, usually beyond the comprehension of lay people, and possibly of interest only in discussions among monks, scholars etc.
By contrast, usage of a Conventional Truth indicates a truth of a more mundane nature, which is generally accepted more-or-less by lay people. It indicates a "worldly-wise" or "normal" position regarding factuality of ordinary things, societal norms or ways of life, regularly accepted does-and-don'ts of the business of daily life, etc.
The Zen proverb such as the one you quoted sounds like an injunction not to shake the boat of normal living even after the extraordinary event of Enlightenment. It appears to stress the importance of maintaining the fabric of ones personal reality by not rejecting Conventional Truth, despite having seen or attained the Ultimate Truth.
Another Zen proverb that seems to juxtapose Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth is this one: “Before I sought enlightenment, the mountains were mountains and the rivers were rivers.
While I sought enlightenment, the mountains were not mountains and the rivers were not rivers.
After I attained enlightenment, the mountains were mountains and the rivers were rivers.”
Indeed, the essence of Zen appears to be the coexistence, inseparability and complementarity of Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth.

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


text:
Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator?
Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator?
Do Buddhists in general also believe there is no supreme being, or do they settle on that there is no intervening supreme being?
Are these the Buddha's thoughts or a deductive conclusion from some type of logical reasoning? If they are mainly the Buddha's, how come they are generally accepted - as far as I understand it, he encouraged everyone to not take his word for anything, but instead seek the truth for themselves?
As you understand I'm a total Buddhist noob, please correct me where I'm wrong and clarify where needed!

This question is in need of some editing.  As stated, it is argumentative.

@GreenMatt Thanks for the heads-up but I don't see any argument in it at all (except maybe an implied argument that Buddhist need a reason for believing there is no creator), I read it as just a question.

@ChrisW: Thanks for the reply. Perhaps it's an artifact of my upbringing that makes me find this argumentative.  That said, those first two sentences/paragraphs are making assumptions about Buddhists that I don't think apply to all who call themselves Buddhist.

I recommend Buddhism and the God-idea

Perhaps because they didn't see one yet?

@GottfriedHelms: Love can not be seen. Compassion. Clarity, joy. Seeing is as much believing as believing is seeing.

Buddhism traditionally extols (recommends and teaches you to practice) emotions like those. They're called Brahmavihara where "Brahma" could be translated as "heavenly" or "god-like"; however that's not the same as believing in a "creator" god (by which I assume you mean like the God of Abraham, "creator of heaven and earth").

@ruben2020: very thorough and an interesting read, it helped a lot!

@ruben2020 Care to put a reference to that Buddhism and the God-idea into an answer? I found that very good, too.

The Buddha said "I teach only suffering and the end of suffering". The question of God is beyond the scope of the teachings of the Buddha.

First, some canonical background:
According to the Acintita Sutta, speculating on the origin of the cosmos or similar topics will lead one to confusion i.e. it cannot be understood.
According to the Cula-Malunkyavada Sutta in the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, the speculation of the origin of cosmos or suffering or similar topics is not useful, because the more important and urgent matter is to attend to the topic of suffering.
According to the Brahmajala Sutta as quoted in this question, temporal beings who have very long lives in the Brahma realm, sometimes may think that they are the Immortal Supreme God, when that is not the case.
As described in this answer, the Acela Sutta states that the Buddha teaches neither eternalism nor annihilationism, but the middle way in terms of philosophy. Eternalism is the idea that anything (that is conditioned) can exist eternally more or less in its original form e.g. consciousness, happiness etc. Annihilationism is the idea that consciousness and existence completely vanishes at death.
Conditioning means something that is affected or influenced or conditioned by other things. For e.g. the tree grows because of sunlight, water, dropping of seed, climate etc. and does not exist as a standalone absolute entity by itself. The Buddha also said that all conditioned things are not permanent.
Now for some discussion:
The human person is conditioned, hence he does not exist eternally i.e. there is no eternal soul, but at the same time, his existence does not completely vanish, and he continues again in another birth.
The different worlds in the Buddhist cosmos are also conditioned and experience change. They too will pass away and return. In other words, there is no single point of creation and destruction for the universe. It comes and goes eternally.
Now assume that there is a Supreme Creator God. He must be a being who can observe the world, who thinks, who does things like creation and who communicates with other beings. This supreme being can be satisfied with his creation and could reward them. Or he could be unhappy with his creation and punish them. He could decide to punish, and then change his mind and grant pardon. He could communicate laws to his creation at some point, then change or update the laws later. He might want his creation to worship him and could reward them for it.
From the perspective of Buddhism, such a being displays all the marks of conditioning, hence cannot be eternal or absolute. Such a being must be within the realm of suffering just as you and I, and must at some point pass away. It is not inconceivable that there are beings with extremely long lives, who have powers and influence over other beings, but they cannot possibly be eternal, absolute or exclusively unique, according to Buddhism. Even the Buddha himself (the person who thinks and moves and communicates) had passed away.

This beats "Buddha said so" every day of the week! :)

For most people God is a dualistic concept. Meaning, for a typical person the unspoken assumption is: "I am here and God is over there". So when I think about God, when I speak to God -- I inevitably imagine some power outside of myself. It is in this power that I place hope for good life and for salvation; it is this power that I blame for unfairness etc. According to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, by attributing to God the power to save us or to send difficulties etc. we alienate ourselves from our own power.
Instead, in Buddhism our liberation is always in our hands. As Trungpa Rinpoche said, no one is going to descent in the golden chariot to take care of you. As long as you keep looking up to some higher power, how can you be the master of your life?
Two of my teachers emphasized such "master consciousness". My Zen Master said: "People say, 'God bless you', but Enlightenment is when you bless God". My last teacher said: "Utilize God". Both remind us to take ownership of our lives.
Not that [Mahayana] Buddhists deny the Absolute. What they deny is existence of independent "I" in the absolute sense. "I" is a label, a nominal designation that only exists relatively to other things. However, because the relative is subsumed in the absolute - not opposed to it - we can't deny existence of the relative either. This (here simplified) position is known as the unity of two truths. From this non-dualistic perspective, my power and the power of Absolute is the same power, my will and the will of Absolute is the same will, and my spontaneity and the spontaneity of Absolute is the same spontaneity. Using it and being used by it refers to the same activity. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." So, like I said in this answer, "Could we go as far as to say that Buddhist path culminates in the first-hand knowledge ... of God?"

Simply "WOW"ed by this answer.

I can't see why dualism means we inevitably must place our hope in God? I doubt the Greeks did. My parents had a lot of power over my life, but I can still be my own master - can't see that the two are necessarily connected. "Utilize God," that's an interesting notion, thanks!

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range.       - Sabba sutta

So if someone claims that 'God' is something other than a sensation or an idea(that simply arises and ceases), if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.

Note though that this could be the statement of hard-nosed materialists as well.

Materialists don't believe in rebirth and Karma. Buddhists do.

Why, precisely, would not Karma be put to grief? There is little scientific evidence to support it (contrary to reincarnation).

@JonasByström Karma is a law on how  eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas etc. etc. arise. If you start meditating, it's not hard to see.

Jonas Byström observe the world around you. See people who are suffering and try to remember or reflect your own life and experiences as well. Nothing happen for no reason

For completeness, there isn't one Buddhism, there are many Buddhisms. The other questions already address the Buddhisms with either no god or no interesting and relevant gods.
By a process of fascinating evolution, Buddhism evolved from early Buddhism, which arguable didn't care or want take a stand on gods or their lack there of, to one that said Gods existed, but made a hairsplitting distinction that they were long lived, but mortal and didn't create the world. And then sometime in the Mahayana phase, Buddhas gained a Pure Land, superhuman powers equatable to a god, and with the Amitabha, infinite life, not merely stupendously long life. See Jan Nattier, "The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism" for a paper about this process.
If someone is looking for a Christian-like god in Buddhism where the standard questions on atheism and theism apply, they should be looking at Amitabhism/Amidaism. Interesting to me, the typical arguments for the efficacy of Amidaism have a logical form, but make some large assumptions-- namely, The Amitabha vowed to save all beings before becoming a Buddha, the Amitabha has become a Buddha, therefore faith in Amitabha is efficacious. The question about if Amitabha is a story that we just made up isn't even addressed. Believers take this all very literally, some intellectuals like Taitetsu Unno seem to take it as somewhat metaphorical.
For the rest of Buddhism, a good argument could be made that Karma is as sort of god like the one that atheists are disbelieving. Karma can tell if you did an act intentionally or accidentally. This implies a certain amount of discretion and intelligence on the part of Karma, unlike gravity, which drops you on the nearest large object regardless to, well, anything.
In SGI/Nichiren Buddhism, people talk about the Mystic Law as if it has agency, see JM Walsh's book "Your Enlightened Mind Wants to Know" for details.

A really fantastic thought on Karma! According to Jim B. Tucker's book Life Before Life there is little statistically significant evidence pointing to the existence of Karma, except for saintly people who seem to receive some higher socio-economic status in their next life. This may imply a supreme being. Or something completely different. Nonetheless thanks for the heads up!

@MatthewMartin "The Amitabha vowed to save all beings before becoming a Buddha, the Amitabha has become a Buddha, therefore faith in Amitabha is efficacious" - this your assumed interpretation is erroneous, you just wrap a Christian Salvation idea you known onto the Amitabha doctrine. It would be too long to explain the subtleties here. Same is your interpretation of "Karma".

The Buddha used to remain silent, when Hindu Brahmins used to ask him about his views on God. He used to give the example of a man carrying a lamp and walking along a village road in the night, trying to reach another village. Human knowledge is like that, he used to say, it can show you the path as you travel along, but it cannot give you the knowledge of the whole Universe, just as the small lamp cannot remove the entire darkness of the Night.
Such arguments and discussions, the Buddha used to think, is a waste of time and effort. "Since Human beings have a limited life  and limited capabilities it is better to optimise their uses " -- this was the thinking of the Buddha.
This is what was taught to us in School.

Admittedly, I'm a beginner myself.  However, it is my understanding that the Buddha took no position as to the existence/non-existence of a God who created everything we see, on the grounds that there is no way of knowing - at least within this life - for certain whether such a being exists. Instead, the Buddha tried to re-focus people on what they could do in this life to improve their circumstances.

When Sufis, Jains and Christian mystics point to God, I almost know for sure that they are pointing to the same thing as Nibbana anyway...or at least they are both pointing in the same direction.
A God that created the universe  is irrelevant in Buddhism anyway.  If God exists or God doesn't exist then either way it has no effect on the Buddha's path to end our suffering.
If the creator doesn't need a creator then the universe doesn't need a creator also. One can't say "the universe needs to have a creator because something had to create it" because they would also have to say "The creator needs to have a creator because something had to create the creator". If the creator needs no creator then why can't the universe need no creator as well?

The Universe is finite in time, could that not have something to do with it?

The universe/totality is the creator itself, isn't it obvious?
We simply don't believe in a 'creator god', which is a whole nother story. Nevertheless, the three marks of existence points to the fact that 'personality' cannot exist in the ultimate reality.

Wouldn't that be equally 'obvious' for 'concious' entities in a computer simulation? They would have no notion of the computer they are simulated on, nor the factory which produced it.

If that's so obvious then maybe you can  tell us how anything in existence can create itself?  Also,   your answer could be a little more more precise. If we are following the Buddha's teaching correctly then we neither believe do not believe in a creator god. The Buddha's teaching isn't about belief.

We do not believe in a creator God, because it is a "wrong view", and not part of the Buddha's teaching. As for your question; "existence is empty of a self or anything pertaining to a self". This means the expanding universe is devoid of "being", and based on "becoming". This is the actual meaning of the word "sunna", that is, existence is only possible as an anarchy, simply because there is no ultimate "archon" (self) that exists in and of itself. So let's say, existence is the "will to power", and as long as there is craving for it, there is becoming.

I think the question itself is based on a presupposition.  It's akin to asking why they don't use baseball bats in golf.  The rules of the game just don't require them.  Buddhism's chief concern is with the surcease of suffering and there's nothing within the Buddha's eight-fold methodology for ending suffering that requires a supreme being.  Any theological construct in addition to what he taught is as superfluous as a a bunch of Louisville sluggers strewn along the fairway.  At best, it's just clutter.  More likely, anything extra is just going to get in the way.

Everyone whether Christians and Muslims, believes everyone has a mind. The Buddha focused on the mind.  The Buddha realised that our mind is so powerful, it can "create" anything- our mind can even create God and gods. That power is the nature of the mind. Therefore Buddhist do not believe there is a creator. Buddhists believe in realising the nature of the mind - the same as what the Buddha did.

The article Buddhism and the God-idea by
Nyanaponika Thera (recommended in the comments by @ruben2020) discusses this nicely in detail.

In addition to being Enlightened, the Buddha had those siddhis (psychic powers) that allowed him to perceive the true nature of the mind and the world. He perceived no god and therefore taught his students to not look for a god because there was no god to be found. He suggested to his students that they could develop the same siddhis and see for themselves that this is no god.

Sounds reasonable, could you point me to a source?

An unusual question! Having studied and practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years, having been a Buddhist monk for 30 years, and having developed my own siddhis, I have many good reasons to believe that the Buddha had extraordinary siddhis and that they were the necessary means for acquiring the wisdom he talked about. This is a view that I have shared with every Buddhist teacher I have met. Indeed, I would say beyond any doubt that it is a view intrinsic to all traditional branches of Buddhism. As a reference, you could look up “siddhi” in Wikipedia.

I have little doubt that the Buddha had learned siddhis, I was merely asking for a source of him using siddhis to perceive the "no god" hypothesis.

Ronald Cowen Can you tell me what kind of siddhis you have and have you also achieved all the jhana?

@TheDBSGuy As an ordained Buddhist monk, it is not appropriate for me to discuss such personal matters. But I have written a book that discusses insights related to the siddhis. The book is called The Path of Love.

Because to create something from something else means to go against the law of cause and effect. Buddhist believe that if one plants orange seed, one will reap oranges. One plants apple seed, one will reap apples and so forth. One can't plant apple seed and reap oranges - it is totally absurd and illogical. One can't have something totally unrelated create something else totally unrelated. Thus buddhist does not believe in a creator.

My question is about the planting, not about the seeds or fruit. Something obviously can create something else totally unrelated. QED? :)

We assume things can exist by itself, but truthfully, thing exists dependently on another. It takes two hands to clap. Even if one assume planting to exist by itself, it is not, because for Christians, there is a God who did the planting, thus the law of dependency still applies, and since the law of dependency applies, there is no independent Creator.

I would like to add to Sankha Kulathantille's comment but I lack the reputation here to comment directly on the subthread. They suggested the Sabbasutta "Sermon on the All", and another user pointed out that a "die-hard materialist" could use the same sermon.
I do not think that that applies. In order for the "die-hard materialist" to use the Sabbasutta they have to first redefine the mind and the mind's objects, dharmas, since they do not believe these things "exist" as the Buddha has said they do.

The concept of ultimate creator is totally illogical and out of wisdom. There is no answer to who did create the creator?

How can we be sure that our logic or wisdom would suffice? A million years ago we climbed out of the trees and we are still killing each other over minor differences. To me it feels like a stretch to claim that even the pinnacle of humanity's wisdom and logic is comprehensive enough to easily grasp the ultimate questions.


text:
What are 'suttas of indirect meaning' in the Pali canon?
This subsection of Wikipedia's Two Truths article says that the "two truths" distinction is not made in the suttas, but that there are some "suttas of indirect meaning".

Two Truths > Origin and development > Early Indian Buddhism > Pali Canon
In the Pali canon, the distinction is not made between a lower truth and a higher truth, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. Thus a phrase or passage, or a whole sutta, might be classed as neyyattha or samuti or vohāra, but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of truth.
Nītattha (Pāli; Sanskrit: nītārtha), "of plain or clear meaning" and neyyattha (Pāli; Sanskrit: neyartha), "[a word or sentence] having a sense that can only be guessed". These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional interpretation. A nītattha text required no explanation, while a neyyattha one might mislead some people unless properly explained:

There are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. Which two? He who represents a Sutta of indirect meaning as a Sutta of direct meaning and he who represents a Sutta of direct meaning as a Sutta of indirect meaning.

If you diagree with these statements, please say so.
Or if you agree with these statements, then please explain again: what is "a sutta of indirect meaning" (either in your own words or by referencing someone else's explanation); and cite some illustrative example[s] of "a sutta of indirect meaning".
Also is there a specific, official, or famous commentary on the suttas where they're "classed" like that (i.e. classified or described as neyyattha or samuti or vohāra)?

From Neyyattha Sutta (A 2.3):

Bhikshus, there are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. What are the two?
  Those who explain a sutta whose sense is direct as indirect. Those who explain a sutta whose sense is indirect as direct. These, bhikshus, are the two who misrepresent the Tathagata.

Examples of provisional teachings from Dharmafarer's analysis of Neyyattha Nītattha Sutta:

Those suttas or teachings that tell stories, describe ritual acts, or that talk of “beings,” “gods,” etc,
  need to have their meaning drawn out (neyyattha), as they do not directly refer to true reality.

Certain passages in the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta (D 16) and related texts, for example, refer to a post-Buddha non-Buddhist situation, reminiscent of strategic placement or geomancy.

"offering to the devas" as mentioned in the Ādiya Sutta (A 5.41)

The Nandamātā Sutta (A 7.50) gives an account of dedication of merit to the deva Vessavaṇa.

"Dedicating merit" is a provisional teaching.  The point is clear that merit is non-negotiable and non-transferable, as stated in the Nidhikaṇḍa Sutta (Khp
  8).

From interview with Ven. Bhikkhu K. Ñānananda ("comments on the Neyyattha Sutta, which seems to have been the seed out of which the Two Truths doctrine has been developed"):

The traditional interpretation, as you get in the commentaries, is very simple: it says neyyattha would be such suttas where the ordinary concepts of beings etc. come in, but nītattha is where you get anicca, dukkha, anattā. That’s a very simple definition of it.

There’s just a flux of life, a functioning, but no agent in it. But the language requires both. That is why we have to say ‘it rains’, leaving the room for someone to ask ‘what is this ‘it’?’. The fire goes out: where has it ‘gone’? The Buddha from time to time had to show the absurdity of such questions. In such contexts you come across the nītattha.

For all practical purposes, the Buddha’s words are enough. But for those who do not practice, but who are armchair critics, there is so much contradiction in the Buddha’s words. Sometimes He says there is dukkha only, and sometimes He says you are suffering. This is also the reason why there is such a mess...

From Early Buddhist Teaching and Abhidhamma by ven. Tezaniya

neyyattha suttas are, for example: „O monk, there is one individual, there are two individuals, there are three individuals" etc.

nītattha sutta is „this is impermanent, this is sorrowful, this is soulless.“

From Wikipedia:

According to Vasumitra, the Bahuśrutīyas considered the Buddha's teachings of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, anātman, and Nirvāṇa to be supramundane, while his expositions on other subjects were to be considered mundane.

From Maha-cattarisaka Sutta:

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities [in terms of the four noble truths].

This idea of indirect and direct sutras is itself misleading. I found a book, "Nāgārjuna and the Philosophy of Openness" which claims that the buddha himself never made exactly such a distinction but that such distinctions seem valid on the basis that the Buddha said that there were some words and phrases which he used without being led astray by them. But as far as I can tell these indirect and direct phrases are present consistently throughout all sutras. The diamond sutra for example, is full of direct meaning like there is really no object that is why it is called "object", but references "I" many times. At the beginning Thus I have heard, taken literally would contradict the later assertion that there is no I.
I think some people are reading too seriously, mostly the sutras are intended to be a helpful expedient to enlightenment.
Everything that is read whether it is from a sutra or not will be interpreted by the reader which will cast a different shadow on the meaning. It is often that the original intent of the author is lost to the readers especially after a lot of time has passed and the language has changed. So it is no surprise that the texts contain expedients that look like they are literal, which led to a schism where some people interpreted sections literally while others did not. And then people started categorising sections of text into direct and indirect or higher and lower.
I highly doubt that there really is a sutra "of indirect meaning" in that all of it is intended to be further analysed nor a sutra "of direct meaning".

The subject of that subsection of Wikipedia was "Early Indian Buddhism" i.e. the "Pali Canon", perhaps pre-dating Theravada.

I just thought of an example of an indirect sutta, the jatakas might well be completely devoid of any "direct" language. Sorry if my answer missed the point. I couldn't answer the last one, and I think that "indirect" and "direct" are subject to interpretation.

Sorry that my question wasn't clearer. I did just ask a different question about "two truths". In this question I was especially interested in learning what I might about (specifically) the Pali suttas. I've thought that a sutta like Simsapa Sutta implies the suttas are meant be as straightforward as possible; but if there are well-known exceptions to that, it could be better for me to know that, than to "represent a Sutta of indirect meaning as a Sutta of direct meaning".

I thought they were all straightforward too, but I now understand that actually I was having to interpret some areas more than others. But IMHO it does not warrant labelling them direct and indirect. Certainly I wouldn't want anyone to take the statement "There is no x" literally lest they become nihilistic.

The suttas appear to state there are no 'indirect meanings', as follows:

Monks, this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me...is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork...MN 22

~~~

I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
  to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed
  fist of a teacher who keeps some things back....DN 16

The matter of 'neyyattha' is touched upon in the following commentary:

The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain. Therein:
The speech wherewith the world converses is true, on account of its
  being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what is
  ultimate is also true, characterizing dhammas as they really are.
Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise
  in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to
  conventions.
Mn. i. 95

In my opinion, the inferred "conventional truth" referred to above is not really a complete "truth" because, as stated, it is not "characterizing dhammas as they really are." Instead, it is a worldly interpretation that maintains the worldly (moral & kammic) efficacy or truth of those teachings.
Here, the 'neyyattha' appears to particularly refer to the 'rebirth' teachings. Ordinary people read words such as 'birth' ('jati'); 'death' ('marana'); 'worlds' ('loka') & 'kaya' ('body'; 'collection'; 'group') & immediately 'infer' a physical meaning (instead of examining how these words are actually defined & used in the supramundane suttas).
However, as stated, when ordinary people use 'neyyattha', the karmic efficacy or reality (truth) is retained, namely, it is correctly understood kamma (intentional action) made in the present has a future consequence or result. That ordinary people believe there will be consequences after the termination of life does not change the efficacy of those teachings because those teachings were given, not for the purpose of enlightenment, but for the purpose of nurturing non-harming, morality or 'merit' (as stated in MN 117).

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There
  are spontaneously born beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
  who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
  others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
  is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
  acquisitions.
MN 117


text:
How does "thought-provoking dissonance" in Zen Buddhist dialectics differ from "wrong speech"?
Zen question-and-answers and talks like the ones described here don't seem like commonly accepted 'right speech'; yet, they are believed or intended to trigger spiritual progress.
In what way do such Zen interactions deliver benefits? For example, are they meant to be thought-provoking dissonance, discomfort and anger, and thereby cause dissatisfaction with habitually-held positions, and thereby create scope for spiritual progress?
Have the teachers specified (in any writings or talks) how to distinguish such dissonance-causing dialectics from "wrong speech" which causes hindrance in spiritual progress and delivers no spiritual benefits to listeners/readers?

First off, I think it's important to understand that Zen isn't something that should be greased up and crammed into the strictures of traditional Buddhist teachings.  Zen makes no overt attempt to follow the path as laid out in the Sutta Pitaka (i.e. in the Samanaphala Sutta) nor does it conform to the gradual training as described in texts like the Vissuddhimagga.  Topics like right action, sila, and virtue, while undoubtedly present in the Zen tradition, are meant to be arrived at through direct insight.  They are realities to be discovered, not guidelines to be followed during the initial stages of practice.
The particular quotes that you are referring to are from two koans.  Specifically, they come from cases 1 and 21 from the koan collection entitled the Mumokan.  In Zen practice, koans are designed to point at some subtle experience of reality (i.e. big mind) that is often missed by our discursive and discriminating smaller minds.  They are not designed to be "thought provoking", nor do they try to be necessarily humorous, provoke anger, or instill discomfort.  They don't even try to cause dissonance.  For these reasons, they can often sound completely nonsensical.  In fact, koans are "none-sense" in the purest definition of the word.  No amount of reasoning will help you arrive at the experience they are pointing to.
That being said, koans are surgically precise.  They aren't just "right speech" they are "exact speech".  The experiences that a koan points to are ridiculously specific and, in the hands of a master teacher, can be used to great affect in awakening a student.  A good teacher knows exactly when to introduce a certain koan.  Like someone playing a game of Jenga, he knows just what block to pull out in order to get a student's whole mental edifice to come toppling down.
All koans seek to awaken the mind.   Not a single word of them is tossed off haphazardly.  They are skillful means - upaya - but are functionally quite distinct from anything you might find in the Theravadan tradition.

Andrei's answer said that the "antidote" could be used, for example, as follows,

So for example, if a Zen master notices that his student lost his fundamental sanity and has "gotten drunk on the shravaka wine" to use Dogen's parable, he might etc.

The following talk about Dogen's Shobogenzo mentions the context of "intoxication on the wine of the sravaka",

Talk on Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo
We’re on page 78, it’s fairly straightforward now. A description about
  discrimination against women in Buddhism.
Even in China, there was a stupid monk who made the following vow: “Through every life, in every age, I shall never look at a woman.”
  Upon what morality is this vow based? Is it based on secular morality?
  Is it based on the Buddha-Dharma? Is it based on the morality of
  non-Buddhists? Or is it based on the morality of heavenly demons? What
  wrong is there in a woman? What virtue is there in a man? Among bad
  people there are men who are bad people. Among good people there are
  women who are good people. Wanting to hear the Dharma, and wanting to
  get liberation, never depend on whether we are a man or a woman. When
  they have yet to cut delusion, men and women alike have yet to cut
  delusion. When they have cut delusion and experienced the principle,
  there is nothing at all to choose between a man and a woman.
So a very clear statement of equality, which unfortunately doesn’t
  exist in Japan, even Nishijima Roshi finds it difficult.
Moreover, if [a man] has vowed never to look at a woman, must he discard women even when vowing to save limitlessly many living beings?
  If he discards them he is not a bodhisattva. How much less [does he
  have] the Buddha’s compassion. This [vow] is just a drunken utterance
  caused by a deep intoxication on the wine of the sravaka.
In other words it’s a mental delusion.
Ch: What does the wine of the sravaka mean?
He just means the delusion of becoming enlightened. So he means the
  romantic idea that we attain some special state.
Neither human beings nor gods should believe this [vow] to be true.
He’s talking about that monk’s vow.

So I think that explains what "drunk on the shravaka wine" means (where Śrāvaka means "disciple").
Now in context perhaps you understand the effect of such speech and why and when it's effective.
It would work because (and only because) it's from the "drunken" disciple's formal teacher.
Also IMO perhaps it happens to be not incompatible with the formal rules of orthodox/traditional Right Speech of which one of the important definitions is (third item in the following list),

[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."

If the Zen teachers have spiritual insight into the minds of their listeners I reckon they could tailor their teaching in order to stir those minds into spiritual progress. But if they are simply trying to elicit a reaction from the audience to try and force them to participate, that would have mixed results.
some people will be turned away and then it would be wrong speech. But it might work anyway with some people. I forget where I read this but - in order to properly assess whether or not a teaching is going to be understood or not and whether it will be beneficial or a hindrance one would need to possess some kind of supernatural power, or have a keen understanding of the mental state of the listener. Despite this many still try to teach dharma without knowing if it will be successful.
I have also had some personal experience trying to convince people of rebirth or anatta etc.. and even the recommended approach backfired leading them to become agitated and defensive.
So I'd say that their approach is probably as good as any, so that only certain people will benefit from their type of discourse.