text:
Who follows which yana (Vajrayana, Hinayana or Mahayana)?
I have heard about these traditions: Vajrayana, Mahayana, and Hinayana. In today's world, Buddhist people dwell in South Asia and East Asia. Who among them follows each particular sect? Does anybody follow more than one of them?

In today's world Buddhist people dwell in South Asia and East Asia . Who among themselves follows particular sect.
Wikipedia's Schools of Buddhism article has a map.
Does anybody follows more than one of them?
I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk of "following a sect". If you think of them as "schools" then, yes, I'm pretty sure that there are some (or many?) people who learn from more than one school.
For example the Pali canon could be associated with the Theravada school, but it is studied by people who also learn from other (e.g. Tibetan or Zen) teachers.
I can't tell you how wide-spread that practice is geographically, but there are certainly some users like that on this site.
And people sometimes emphasize what the "sects" of Buddhism have on common (What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?, and One Vehicle for Peace which is referenced from that topic).

Incidentally, please refer to this topic: How should we police the use of the word Hinayana?
Also, One Vehicle for Peace (referenced above) says,

It is universally accepted by scholars that the terms Hinayana and Mahayana are later inventions by Mahayanists. Theravada cannot be included in either of these divisions. Historically speaking Theravada already existed long before these two terms came into being. etc.

The Wikipedia map I referenced shows Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana (not Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana) as you wrote in the question.
Dhammadhatu's answer is about Hinayana ("individual enlightenment vehicle") since that's what you asked about -- it's one of the yanas which are described in Mahayana doctrine. But maybe (since you asked about different schools in different geographical places) you intended to ask instead about Theravada (which I think of as "old school" or "original school" or literally "school of the elder monks").

Hinayana (individual enlightenment vehicle) practitioners practise only Hinayana; i.e, the realisation of not-self (anatta) & emptiness (sunnata); which they will also teach to others who they regard as suitably predisposed.
Mahayana practitioners (developing 'bodhicitta'- the wish to attain enlightenment motivated by great compassion for all sentient beings) must practise both Hinayana (to realise emptiness) and Mahayana (altruistic intention).
Vajrayana (tantric) practitioners (developing the qualities of a deity or god) must practise Hinayana, Mahayana & Vajrayana because, if the Hinayana path is not realised, their tantric Vajrayana practise of self-deification will become egotistical & thus delusional.
The above was taught to me by a fully ordained Tibetan Vajrayana monk & geshe.
For me, Hinayana practitioners only practise Hinayana because they do not believe Mahayana (saving all sentiment beings & being reborn as a Bodhisatva for many future lives) is possible. Instead, they only help those who they believe Buddhism can help (which is not all people but only those suitably predisposed).

Where are there Hinayana practicioners today?

I thought the Hinayana school was extinct.

@Uilium This answer implies that "Hinayana" now (as it's still used today) applies to (describes) an outlook, a level of understanding, a classification of student. It's a term used in the Tibetan school[s]. "Hinayana" is not a distinct school, nor has a "where" (a geographical location).


text:
Is physical pain only 'remembered' or 'anticipated' so actually there is no pain? If so, how to understand?
I don't know whether this is an Buddhist point of view, but it comes from Byron Katie. She says that there is no real pain because it is only remembered or anticipated. But I don't understand that. So is this also a Buddhist kind of mediation, if so can you explain how physical pain doesn't exists in the now?
For example if I chew on my tongue it can hurt very much, but for me that pain does really exist at that moment and the time after. So how can she say it is only a remembering or anticipation of it? How does buddhism sees this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ul5UI6KO50&t=1140 (scroll to time min 19:00 through 20:20)

There's a related topic here: Experiencing physical pain (some of the answers to that e.g. "you can end up experiencing the memory of a pain, as much or more than the actual right-now sensations" and "focus on the temporariness of what we feel" seem related to what you're asking).

She didn't quite say exactly that ("no real pain"), by the way ... she says something more like, get present and focus, be with the pain, locate where it is and the moment you feel it, and then play with "all pain is either remembered or anticipated, just like everything else" and then you begin to see that there isn't anything in between.

In the Buddha's teachings feeling is of three kinds: pleasant, unpleasant, neutral. Feeling is dependent on contact with the senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, sound, mental object ( idea, thought, other)

"An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling?

To see the difference read the continuation here: Sallatha Sutta: The Dart (SN 36.6)

One must distinguish physical pain from mental suffering. Pain is a fact of life and is inevitable but suffering is optional.

"Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched
  with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not
  beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical,
  but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and,
  right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would
  feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a
  feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does
  not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become
  distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html

The video section quoted by the OP starts with, "What I suggest for people who are in current, physical pain...".

Pain is a subjective experience from individual to individual and also from moment to moment.
From personal experience, it's not possible to feel the pain and simultaneously be in the present moment.
On the flip side, if you're one with the pain, there's no one left to feel the pain.
When I have pain (i) I focus all my attention on it; this causes the pain to increase in intensity momentarily, then subside (ii) Focus my attention on the present moment.

Here are a few comments about what I guess it might mean if it is a Buddhist point of view.

The first is that Buddhism distinguishes like a rainbow or spectrum of mental phenomena, which occur one after the other, for example:

The sense bases -- for example skin and the sense of touch
Contact -- between objects and the senses and the mind
Feeling -- the sensation or assessment that a contact is pleasant or unpleasant or neutral
Craving -- for continued (or for discontinued) contact and feeling

I think the view (Buddhist doctrine) might be that these (these events or mind-moments) happen one after another, and that you're not aware of them all simultaneously. For example first there's contact (e.g. between the mind and the sense of touch), and then there's feeling (e.g. "that feels nice" or "that feels painful"), and then there's craving (e.g. "I wish that would continue" or "I wish that would stop").
Maybe a theory is that by the time you develop a "feeling" or "craving", then the "sensation" which caused it is already in the past. At the moment when you have a "sensation" you haven't developed a "feeling" or a "craving" about it.

The second is that her quote says to "localise" the pain: which might be important.
If you don't localise the pain then you might think, "that's pain, I am hurt". If you localise it then you might think, "Pain ... in the hand ... in one small part of the right hand." Localizing it to one spot might be already better then feeling as if it had hurt all of you. It might also make you aware of other parts which are or aren't also hurt. If you're also aware of other parts, then your awareness of the localized hurt part might be intermittent (assuming it's true that you can only be aware of one part at a time).
As an exercise, now try touching two fingers or two thumbs (on two different hands), and try to be aware of the sense of touch on both fingers. You might find that your awareness switches rapidly from one finger to another and back again: you're not continuously or solidly aware of both.
This exercise might demonstrate an example of discontinuous awareness of physical sensation: i.e. that it happens in the past or future but not exactly right now (instead it comes and goes several times per second).

The above are small time scales (e.g. one second, more or less).
The general statement might be also true (be meaningful/applicable) over much longer time-scales: if e.g. pain hurts today I might worry that it will get worse tomorrow, or next year; or maybe it doesn't hurt much today but I remember  it used to hurt.

Lastly there's a Buddhist aphorism, that "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self."
Having "a view of self" apparently makes things worse: a thought like "I am hurt" increases suffering.
If instead you avoid that view (of self), perhaps that's a kind of emptiness which she seems to hint at when she says, "you begin to see that there isn't anything in between".
Phenomena are maybe transient, distant, and/or localized, passing, past, or future (not present).
See e.g. this essay about Emptiness (emptiness is an important part of Buddhist doctrine).

Another important Buddhist view is that things are impermanent. Whatever they are, they come and go, they arise and cease, they change and change again. In that way, things tend to be past or future.

Related to that, I think that a view like "that is pain" is a mental categorization. The experience which it's categorizing might be already past, or just about to happen (or not just about to happen).
My guess from Byron Katie's Wikipedia page is that she might encourage you to experiment (or "play") with alternative categorizations like, I don't know, maybe: what if you don't call it "pain"? what if you concentrate on it? or what if you don't concentrate on it, or concentrate on something or someone else? what if you try to do something about it (seek medical help)? or what if you stop trying to do something about it? etc.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the best meditation practice to fall asleep?
I want to know if exist some practice to meditate when I am ready to sleep, in order to train while I am dreaming.

Have a look Meditating as sleep aid

Welcome to Buddhism SE. Have a look at our Help Center for useful resources. Enjoy your stay.

I think this question isn't the quite the same as Meditating as sleep aid ... because that one is about how to "help me sleep when I cannot sleep", and this one is about how to "train while I am dreaming".

Maintain extraordinarily sharp attentiveness to your body as you fall asleep.  Your day-time meditation practice will have to be regular and consistent, without a daytime practice dreamtime practice will not really have a foundation to rest upon.
When you fall asleep, train yourself to stay aware of how all your limbs feel, the tension or laxity in your body, and the gentle rise and fall of your breath.
That is, in my experience, the best way to maintain aware levels of mind while falling asleep.  You must be able to observe without interfering too much, and that is why a daytime meditation practice is important.
If you set your intentions just before bed strongly, with the intent to further your practice and realizations in your dreams in order to bring ultimate benefit to all sentient beings and all that lives, you will make progress quickly.  There may be a few days where nothing happens, but if you keep to it, one day you shall break through.  As you fall asleep, keep your mind on your body energy and warmth, and you can use the physical body as an anchoring point for your attention until the falling away of gross perceptions takes place

If there is one meditation, it is ‘Aanaapanasati’  Meditation. You can direct your breathing meditation to other aspects if you want to. One such is having the breath as a way of training yourself to be kind to yourself and others in developing goodwill.  Likewise you can breathe in such a way that puts yourself to sleep.  Here you do not entertain any thoughts but you are distracted rather than being mindful of breath.
Sleepiness is a hinderance. One of the characteristics of the hindrances is that they deceive you. When sleepiness arises, your mind is usually already on the side of falling asleep. You don’t see it as a problem. It is what you desire and it is something desirable at that moment in time. When the mind is lethargic, it’s time to get some rest. It’s time to sleep.  You have to learn to see this as genuine hindrances, as a real obstacle on your path, and not be fooled into siding with it.

Among the 40 meditation subjects loving kindness meditation has the benefit of sleeping easy. Hence this is the best meditation to help with sleep.

One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and – if penetrating no higher – is headed for [reborn in] the Brahma worlds.

This is not a question about Buddhism.
Counting down from 100, starting back at the top with a mistake or forgetting the next number. There are many other ways to fall asleep too.
Meditation should not be done too close to sleep. With that, meditation should not be done in the lying down position.
As for lucid dreaming, a dream journal is an apt idea. (Sleeping is sleeping, there is no training.)

Yes is related to the Buddhis, the control of the mind and clearness is part of the concepts, I found this practices: Dream yoga consists of tantric processes and techniques within the trance Bardos of Dream and Sleep (Standard Tibetan: mi-lam bardo) Six Dharmas of Naropa. In the tradition of the tantra, the dream yoga method is usually passed on by a qualified teacher to his/her students after necessary initiation. In the end you can train in the dreams.

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


text:
Even if those offended are just ignorant about the word "Hinayana", why use it?
Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive?
There is no other word that can be used? Would using another word (or phrase) be compassionate towards those who might get offended by it's use even if the intent wasn't to offend or provoke?
Is "Hinayana" so sacred, useful and descriptive that it must be used even when talking to an audience that likely has people in it who would be offended?

Do you want to reference an example or the example of where it's used in the way you describe?

I never understand what your getting at. Refrence an example?  Seriously?

it's true that a lot of buddhist scholarship and mahayana texts use the term. i think it reflects badly on the former. but, if the implication is that it discredits the compassion to the history of mahayana, that ignores so much that

You might be interested in this: How should we police the use of the word Hinayana?

@ChrisW♦ Well, now there are plenty of examples :)

Actually, "hinayana" was originally intended to be offensive, and is also misleading, because it implies a homogeneity of the early schools that did not exist. Of course, Mahayanists are not the only ones who developed offensive language concerning the early schools. The Theravadins (who are not one of the original eighteen schools by the way, contrary to popular misconception; see below) referred to the early schools as so many thorns on the tree of dharma. However, the word is also useful because there are not a lot of alternatives, and it has the advantage of being recognizable. The title of my book, Fundamental View, intentionally alludes to the literal meaning of "hina," i.e., base, = basic, using a bit of etymological sleight of hand. I wanted to take what was good about the word and use it, without the pejorative connotation. In my subsequent book, Conversations with the Buddha, I consistently replaced the word with the phrase "the Eighteen Schools," the Hinayana traditionally being identified with the original eighteen schools of early Buddhism. A synonymn for Hinayana is Sravakayana, "the hearers' vehicle," but this is also pejorative. Some people use Theravada as a synonymn for Hinayana, but this is inappropriate since it implies that the relatively late "early" school of Theravada (4th cent. CE) is primary, whereas in fact the Theravadin self-identification with the Sthaviriya (4th cent. BCE) is retrospective and is not mentioned by Warder, for example; this is therefore an ahistorical, sectarian, ideologically motivated back formation, like the word "hinayana" itself, rather like the Jehovah's Witnesses referring to their sect as "original Christianity." Moreover, the Sthavira were not the original Buddhist school, they split from the Mahasamghika, so that one must therefore logically regard the Mahasamghika, precursor of the Mahayana, as the original Buddhist school. Original or presectarian Buddhism is also inappropriate, because the Hinayana consisted of multiple schools and was not presectarian. Incidentally, here is a chronological list of the 18 original Buddhist schools according to A.K. Warder as of circa 50 BCE: Sthaviravada, Mahasamgha, Vatsiputriya, Ekavyavaharika, Gokulika (a.k.a. Kukkutika, etc.), Sarvastivada, Lokottaravada, Dharmottariya, Bhadrayaniya, Sammitiya, Sannagarika, Bahusrutiya, Prajnaptivada, Mahisasaka, Haimavata (a.k.a. Kasyapiya), Dharmaguptaka, Caitika, and the Apara and Uttara (Purva) Saila (quoted from my contribution to the Wikipedia article s.v. Early Buddhist Schools; see also his Indian Buddhism, chap. 9). It is also worth mentioning that the Mahayana does not reject the Hinayana, only one school of which still exists. It is a bodhisattva downfall to disparage the Hinayana. IMHO, the proper Mahayana perspective on the Hinayana is that it constitutes the foundation of Buddhism, much as the foundation of a house; it is not identical with the whole construction of the house, but the whole construction of the house rests on and is supported by the foundation. The house and the foundation need each other. Take away either one, and the whole structure would collapse or be uninhabitable respectively.

I guess that the "Hinayana" as per the start of your answer ("was originally intended to be offensive") is a different usage/meaning/intent (possibly a different time period or author?) than the same word at the end of your answer ("downfall to disparage" and "constitutes the foundation").

In my very first encounters with Buddhism I've always thought, that this is simply the distinguition between "maha" and "hina" in a sense of a larger fraction and a smaller fraction of the sangha in the first larger schism after the second(?) council. An example already known to me was the pair of nouns "Men-shewiki" (smaller fraction) and "Bol-shewiki" (larger fraction) of the communist movement at the early time of Lenin, when the two fractions separated due to different view of things and of how to proceed.
So also the basic term "maha-sanghika" came to me, as "the larger fraction" of the sangha, and I thought, "maha-yana" and "hina-yana" was simply derived from that (physical) comparision of size (the "vehicle of the larger/ smaller fraction").
But with irritating frequency I heard of disgust of buddhists connected with the term "hinayana" - and I'd seen one time in an online discussion someone telling, that "hina" does not simply mean "small(er)" but has a derogatory, diffamating tone.
It seems difficult to find an entry in an actual dictionary (online, don't have a Pali/Sanskrit dictionary at my own), but I found this in a yoga-wiki:
http://wiki.yoga-vidya.de/Hina

Hina (Sanskrit: hina adj. u. n.) ist das PPP der Sanskrit Verbalwurzel
  (Dhatu) ha und bedeutet: verlassen, zurückgelassen; mangelhaft,
  fehlend, klein, gering, schwach; kleiner, weniger wertvoll; Mangel,
  das Fehlen.
(I try to translate but may miss the tone of valuation: "... lost, left behind; buggy, missing, small, low, weak; smaller, less valuable; the lack, the missing")

... while I still do not know the opposite term of "maha" simply with the meaning "small" without a social/valuating tone.
(In principle) I still cannot understand how such a connoted term as "hina-yana" could have at all been born in the sangha of the followers of the Buddha - possibly coined by members simply of "the larger fraction" ("maha-sanghika") even when they thought themselves (and maybe correctly) as practioners of a "wider concept" ...
The disgust of Theravadins seems to me understandable, if I imagine of calling one path/"vehicle" the "omnibus" (mahayana) and the other one the "Bobby car" ("hinayana") using english language - and even to insist on such an implicite valuation in face of the concern with this, which was expressed openly many times and also long times.
A funny/joking example of the tricky relation of ours to the terms "large" and "small" stems from the former socialistic german republic, when the ideal(!) of smallness (in the realms of electronical devices) could not be met as perfect as in "the west", and the people ironically trumpeted: "we have the largest microprocessors of the world!".
So in focusing more on the answering of your question - surely it should be advised to look at common examples, where the "smaller" is the "finer":

being more focused
having more concentration,
being free of a bunch of litter (and -for instance- of fetters)

and -just for the mental exercise of emanicpation from the connotations of "greater" and "less" - one can try to find then actual terms for the advantages-of-the-smaller to get rid of any feeling of being-pissed, of confrontation or even of revenge or of any unkind emotion which might come up when feeling bullied by the term "hina-yana"....

hi. the word 'hina' is actually found in the 1st sermon, where indulgence in sensual pleasures is described as 'low'. "Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, low (hīno), vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good;..." Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

Ah, thanks Dhammadhatu. It is always good to have references into the canon itself...

lol :) Yes, there seems to be all kinds of yana. Focused yana, subtle yana, concise yana, sharp yana, reductive yana ,  popular yana,  blunt yana and  big microprocessor yana.

If the mind is 'offended', it is not actually practising the 'Hinayana' (Pali) path. Therefore, the question is non-sequitur.
How many Hinayana practitioners have reached the goal of Arahantship or even Stream-Entry (which is also noble & free)? Many enough.
How many Mahayana practitioners have reached the goal of saving all sentient beings? Zero.
Are we offended when fundamentalist Christians declare Buddhism is evil & Jesus is the only way?
Therefore, what is there to be offended about when the Lord Buddha remained silent & calm about this matter?

Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of
  sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for
  the attainment of the right method & for the realization of
  Nibbana, will all the world be led [to release], or a half of it,
  or a third?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
Uttiya Sutta

Sorry this is absurd, unless you claim to be already enlightened, one cannot help but experience 'offense' to slights due to the sense of self. This is why many Theravadins feel slighted with the terms 'Hinayana', because they have identified with that term.
Even the fact that you pointed out that Mahayana cannot succeed on their ultimate goal comes across as awfully sore. While we are at it why not compare how many people the Mahayanist have liberated vs the Theravadins? Why shoot people down for setting a higher goal? In fact your sectarian viewpoint might incur some very serious karma.

If you don't know the proper path of the Bodhisattva don't comment on it. Plenty of Mahayana practitioners have attained high states, they simply don't strive for Arhatship, saving all sentient beings isn't the immediate goal. Saying lots of hinayana practioners have reached Arhatship is like saying lots of Mahanyana practitioners have reached Bodhisattvaship.

In 'Hinayana' (Pali) Buddhism, the term 'Bodhisatta' (Pali) refers to an unenlightened being that is seeking enlightenment. I do not see the point in attempting to use terminology to reconcile different schools that are so far apart in their respective views. As for what my post actually states, it states not one Mahayana practitioner has ever reached the goal of Mahayana, which is to save all sentient beings. And they never ever will. This is because Hinayana (Pali) Buddhism realistically describes the vast majority of 'humanity' as a "rubbish heap of blinded mortals".

"If the mind is 'offended', it is not actually practising the 'Hinayana' (Pali) path."- for now let's say It doesn't matter about that mind that thinks it's Hinayana, let's say it matters about the mind that causes the suffering needlessly to the lamenting fool. What do we say?

Well, regarding Hinayana as an inferior vehicle is a tenant of Mahayana, similar to how Christianity or Islam may regard Buddhism as a lesser vehicle. if you follow Pali Buddhism, you probably believe Pali Buddhism is best. I think all religions or paths believe they are better than others. Therefore, I think one should should respect each religion for their belief system. If Mahayana believes Pali Buddhism is an inferior vehicle, imo, that should be respected (rather than be a cause for offense).

Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive?
I suppose the reason why, the circumstances in which it's used, varies.

In this answer, Andrei wrote,

... the term "Hinayana" is widely used by Tibetan Buddhism teachers to refer to basic/elementary/foundational (and because of this often simplified) aspects of Buddha-Dharma ... Imagine two teachers discussing their students with each other:

"I have 3 Hinayana-level students, 2 Mahayana-level, and 1 Mahamudra"

In this (hypothetical) example it's "two teachers" using a technical term in private.
So there's no chance of the word being overheard and thought of as offensive.

In the same answer, Andrei used the word "Hinayana". I presume that was because he was answering the question, which was Is there a better term than Hinayana?
The word has been discussed a lot (perhaps too much?) on this site. And obviously, you and I too are both again "using the word" in this topic.

It's used in this question Who follows which yana (Vajrayana, Hinayana or Mahayana)?
I couldn't tell whether the OP wanted to ask about Hinayana or whether he meant to ask about Theravada.
The two words have different meaning so you shouldn't use the one instead of the other (shouldn't say Theravada when you mean Hinayana, and shouldn't say Hinayana if you mean Theravada).
Dhammadhatu's answer answered the question as face value (not as an offensive term but as a yana taught by a Tibetan teacher).
My answer assumed that the OP might have misused the term when asking the question. I made that assumption for two reasons: the OP asked for a "geographical distribution" which is answerable using a map if-and-only-if you assume that the question is asking about Theravada not Hinayana. Another reason why I assumed that meaning is because when I was at school my (non-Buddhist) school-teacher (more or less wrongly) explained that,

"There are two forms of Buddhism: the older Hinayana and the newer Mahayana."

IIRC he might have brought up the same Menshevik/Bolshevik analogy as in Gottfried's answer ...  and/or he might have referred to the size of a boat, i.e. a "small boat" is big enough to carry one person whereas a "big boat" is meant to be able to carry many people. I think that my school-teacher's explanation could be obsolete, may be seen as offensive, and may be a very elementary view ... and may be common (e.g. I heard it, so it's "not unheard of") so maybe the OP made a similar use of it.

"this (hypothetical) example it's "two teachers" using a technical term in private.
So there's no chance of the word being overheard and thought of as offensive." -wow so as long as the door is shut they can let the swear words fly? But what about there own minds?

Maybe, sometimes when it's used, it's used a meaningful term and not intended as (not thought of as) an offensive swear-word. It's people who don't see the word as meaningful/useful who see it as offensive. It's hard to think of a good analogy though, to explain it, but for example, imagine if you and I were gymnastics teachers, and I said that one of our students was "short". Maybe it's important that I point that out, maybe their height has an effect on their ability to practice, and maybe I ought to tell you that they're short; or "lame".

Someone else might see short or lame as offensive and wonder why I'm using those words.

Those of the ‘Mahayana’ viewed the Theravada School of Buddhism as ‘Hinayana’ - as incomplete realization. For them it was a “lesser” vehicle - word expressing contempt or disapproval. Then the World Fellowship of Buddhists decided unanimously in Colombo in 1950 that the term Hinayana should be eliminated when referring to the Theravada School of Buddhism. The term Hinayana is now a thing of the past.
It was only in the centuries around the birth of Christ that a new school was born, and its adherents called it Mahayana. The adherents of the older schools criticized the Mahayanists, especially
for creating new sutras, forging the word of the Buddha. The Mahayanists on the other side reacted to that critique by accusing their opponents of not understanding the teaching of the Buddha at all and for being narrow minded egoists. These views were debated and the Mahayana side of the debate came up with the word  “hiinayaana  - that any fool could grasp”  as an insult, and it stuck. So it does not simply mean "Lesser vehicle".  The opposite of mahaa is cuu.la, so this is the normal word for "small".
The term "hiina" is used in the canonical Pali texts in the first recorded sermon of the Buddha, the
Dhammacakkappavattanasutta spoken to the five ascetics who became the first five bhikkhus. There the Buddha says:

"These two extremes, monks, are not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the world. What are the two? That conjoined with the passions and luxury, low (hiina), coarse, vulgar,
  ignoble and harmful ..."

So one can regard "coarse, vulgar, ignoble and harmful" as definitions of "hiina". Here the Buddha clearly denotes the path not to be practised, as hiina, which without any reasonable doubt means "of low quality". Then Hinayana is not Theravada Buddhism.  It is both insulting and historically wrong. Therefore, there is no Hinayana.  Wise Buddhists ought to lay that word at rest.

Is your historical record anywhere present online? I'd like to read more about that reports (or a least let it be reconstructions) of that era in the history of buddhism with such lively illustration.

Yes, Gottfried, whenever I read something of interest, I copy parts of it. So it is there online and it will not be a problem for me to find the source. Just give me a couple of days. These days I'm a bit tight for time.

Thanks in advance, Saptha Visuddhi - I'll be happy whenever you'll have time for this. You might "ping" me using an @ prefixed to my name in your comment/notice of edit.

@GottfriedHelms The 2nd paragraph above is a near-verbatim though unattributed quote from The myth of Hinayana by  Kåre A. Lie (see also No Hinayana in Buddhism by  Chan Khoon San).

On this thread someone quotes it saying that it's "a pejorative term when use by Mahayana/Vajrayana people to describe Theravada". Granted that it's "pejorative when it's used to describe Theravada", Uilium is now questioning whether it has a different, useful purpose (not used as a synonym for Theravada). Two answers to this topic deny that it refers to Theravada, and say that it's used to refer to something else.

This answer seems to me misleading. I can't find a source/reference for the first two sentences including Those of the Mahayana viewed the Theravada School of Buddhism as Hinayana: is this personal opinion or misunderstanding? The article that's semi-quoted in the 2nd paragraph also says, which isn't quoted, Who were the opponents who were labeled Hinayana? Theravada? Probably not! At the time when Mahayana was born, Theravada had mainly “emigrated” to Sri Lanka, and could hardly be counted among the dominating schools on the Indian mainland – where the Mahayana-Hinayana debate took place.

@ChrisW, IMO there were only two sides involved. Those who abided the true Dhamma and those who distorted the Scriptures, twisting them and projecting an untruth as truth. The true disciples came to be known as the Theravadin. This is similar to how Maghadi became Pali as it is known today. Magadhi was the dialect that Buddha spoke. Today the written form of this language we refer to as ‘Pali’. Similarly the term ‘Hinayana’ came up with the decadence of the True Dhamma. After its revival in Sri Lanka the true disciples of the Supreme Buddha came to be known as Theravadin  & Theravada Buddhism.

@GottfriedHelms you have your answer now. There’s a lot more info in the natve Sinhala language but not found on internet. For eg: After the Dhammashoka Era, there were other dynasties like Shaka, Kshatrapa, Pahlawa, Saatawahana, Kushana etc. It was during this time the decline of the Dharma took place over time. Sthaviravadin tried to protect the truth while the far more powerful Mahasanghikavadin during King Kanishka’s time took control of things with the translation of the distorted truth in to Sanskrit. That was when Buddha Statues and other distortions came into prominence.

"The adherents of the older schools criticized the Mahayanists, especially for creating new sutras, forging the word of the Buddha."
This is offensive and does not give credit to the fact that the Mahayana schools were very careful to preserve the Agama as separated from Mahayana teachings. Theravadins who claim that Mahayanist forge the words of the Buddha are even more offensive than the 'Theravadins being labeled as Hinayanists', and show their ignorance of what Mahayana Buddhism actually taught. The whole purpose of Mahayana sutras are meant to elucidate on the technical teachings.

The Mahayana sutras explain the concepts in Buddhism through the use of skillful means, hence while not being 'the literal word' of the historical Buddha, the intents are there and hence are still very much Buddhist teachings and in effect 'word of Buddha'.

"After its revival in Sri Lanka the true disciples of the Supreme Buddha came to be known as Theravadin & Theravada Buddhism"
Once again offensive and unwise, claiming that only Theravadins have the true Buddhist teachings.

It matters not who is right or wrong if you could get into the path. A person who walked in the stream-winning path will not die before attaining the stream-winner state.  It is mentioned in the Okkhanti Sanyukta in SN by the name of ‘coming to the noble path’. It mentions the fact that one who contemplates about this life in terms of impermanence, suffering, and soullessness and who see life in terms of cause and effect would not die without becoming a stream-winner. Therefore, he is indeed a person who well established in the Dispensation of the Supreme Buddha be it Mahayana or the other.

@Yinxu Is the lotus sites was written in more like the spirit of Gotama Buddha?

Uilium, I would ask you, what is your aim, or goal? If liberation is what you are intent upon, the Buddha had this to say in regards to how one should conduct their speech :
Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta:

Skillful Verbal Action
"And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world. Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord. Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large. Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal. This is how one is made pure in four ways by verbal action.

It's not obvious how this answers the question. I think the question is, "Why use it?", and "Is there another word, a synonym but less offensive, which could be used instead?"

Thank you Chris, you are right. I will edit my answer for clarity.

Suzuki Roshi's calls his teaching Hinayana
Suzuki Roshi was in the lineage stream of Zen master Dogen (1200–1253) and was committed to introducing Dogen’s way of practice to the West. Although he recommended studying the many written works of Dogen (few of which were translated into English at that time), it was the spirit of Dogen that was most vital for him. Like Dogen, he did not consider Zen a teaching or practice separate from buddha dharma, or that the Soto school of Zen was either superior or inferior to any other school. He characterized our way as Hinayana (Narrow Vehicle) practice with a Mahayana (Wide Vehicle) mind. Sounds like Suzuki Roshi has a good reason for using the term. Does anyone know what is meant by 'narrow' and 'wide'?

People keep bringing up stuff like Hina used to mean something bad but this was thousands of years ago. Hina now just means small, the standard interpretation is that Hinayana schools only liberate themselves while Mahayana Bodhisattva's continuously liberate themselves as well as other sentient beings therefore it is compared to a Vehicle which is larger as it carries oneself and others as opposed to the Hinayana which only carries oneself.

The word "hina" is in the 1st sermon of the Buddha where devotion to sensuality & self-mortification is "hina". Hina means "low"/"inferior". Also the Dhammapada states a person cannot be liberated by another person therefore, according to Pali ('Hinayana') Buddhism, a Bodhisattva cannot liberate other sentient beings. All an enlightened person can do is teach another person the way of practise leading to enlightenment. Pali Buddhism states: "Buddhas only point the way; you must walk the way". A Bodhisatva using love may make another person temporarily feel better but they cannot liberate them.

"Hinayana schools only liberate themselves", what is small about liberating oneself?  That is what the Buddha taught, Isn't it? Liberating the other is liberting  yourself. You can only liberate one time according to the Buddha. You do mean Nirvana right?

All schools do agree that the Pali Suttas are the word of the Buddha right?


text:
Does the Buddha like dogs?
I am not a buddhist but I have a friend who is. He dislikes dogs and I have questioned him as to whether he is a true Buddhist. I believe that the Buddha is peaceful and nature loving, and so would love dogs.

You tagged this [tag:buddha-nature] like the famous koan. Was than intentional? An important part of the question? Alternatively the [tag:the-buddha] tag (added later) might be for if you were asking about the historical Buddha.

If he is a Buddhist, tell him to keep aware of dog. That goes for everyone.

The Buddha taught 'birth' with an 'animal' state of mind is a state of woe (beset by chronic suffering) or lower state of 'existence' (being).
The Lokapala Sutta states that people who do not have moral shame (human conscience) and fear of wrongdoing (compassion for self & others) will behave like dogs & thus not have the bright principles that protect, respect & honor the world.
The Kukkuravatika Sutta explains people behaving like dogs will lead those people to the company of dogs; but if it does not, it will lead to hell. This is why we can observe in society like-minded immoral people who create cliques where they keep eachother's company but, eventually, they turn on each other.
For example, recently my neighbour's dog killed their pet cat. While pet dogs & cats can live harmoniously & friendly with each other, if the dog or cat is emotional, it will act without conscience & concern for the other pet. This is similar to people who are killed by their pet lion, snake or crocodile who they mistakenly thought was loyal & tame.
Dogs can be very loyal to their human masters that feed them but they also bark at strangers & fight a lot, particularly about sex & territory.
In Western countries, dogs are generally desexed thus do not have normal sex lives. However, in non-Western countries, this does not generally occur and one can witness male dogs literally bite each other to shreds over sex during the mating season.
Many people also behave like this, such as politicians & those in government, who tear each other to shreds, stab each other in the back & start horrible wars merely for the purpose of (imperialistic) territory, power & empire building.
Thus, the Buddha may have shown unconditional love to all living creatures but this does not mean he encouraged all of their behaviours.

Mata yatha niyam puttam
Ayusa eka-putta-manu rakkhe
Evampi sabba-bhutesu
Manasam-bhavaye apari-manam

Quoted from Karaniya Metta Sutta  Here it's meaning.
    Even as a mother protects with her life Her child, her only child,
    So with a boundless heart Should one cherish all living beings;
    Radiating kindness over the entire world: Spreading upwards to the skies,
    And downwards to the depths; Outwards and unbounded,
    Freed from hatred and ill-will.

So definitely Buddha shows unconditional kindness and love to every living things including trees.
but Buddha never force any one to do as he said , it is his/her choice,  So if some one want to dislike dogs or like dogs that is personal, So if Buddha liked dogs that is not a reason for a follower to love dogs. Buddha only showing a way, we are the ones who deciding how much faster we are going that way and how much percent we acquire. That is the Freedom of Buddhism. It's well explained in
Kalama Sutta

You tagged this question buddha-nature -- I'm not sure if that tag is relevant.
There's a famous koan about a dog and "Buddha-nature" -- see Joshu's Dog -- which this question reminds me of.
Maybe we're not supposed to discuss koans on this site, but I think the phrase "Buddha-nature" means "has potential to become Buddha" ... so this question combined with this tag, together, confuse me a bit.
Ignoring the tag and taking the question at face-value: if you were asking about the historical Buddha ... I get an impression of the Buddha's character, from reading suttas in the Pali canon, e.g. as follows.
You wrote, "I believe that the Buddha is peaceful and nature loving, and so would love dogs" and I think that's more or less true.
A bit more precisely, one of the aspects of being "peaceful" is being "non-violent" or "harmless". I find it incongruous to imagine the Buddha wanting to kick a dog, for example. Living in the forest, monks were meant to coexist harmlessly with animals -- see for example Ahi Sutta: A Snake.
When you mention "love", some more precise definitions of the orthodox-Buddhist kinds of love are found in descriptions of the four Brahma-viharas, which are often translated as "compassion", "goodwill", "empathetic kindness", and "equanimity" (described on Wikipedia, on "Access to Insight", and in many topics on this site like maybe this one for example). I suppose the Buddha would be compassionate to all beings (including dogs) -- see for example this verse from the Dhammapada:

He who seeks his own happiness by oppressing others, who also desire to have happiness, will not find happiness in his next existence

Note that this is "not oppressing" others, that's not exactly the same as "being attached" to others ... and the word "love" often conventionally implies a form of attachment (e.g. if "I love my dog" then perhaps I am sentimentally attached to it). But the Buddha maybe wasn't sentimental about love -- this answer about choosing a marriage partner, for example, suggests a fairly clear-eyed assessment of their abilities and nature -- and the suttas are full of warning about attachment leading to suffering.
So though it may be true to say that the Buddha would "love dogs", I think that shouldn't be understood as saying that he was "a stereotypical dog person", who might seek to follow dogs or etc.

Buddha loved all the animal (can see to eye & cannot see to eye) in the world not only dogs. for examples like "Alcoholic Elephant Nalagiri". before become Buddha prince siddartha save's a swan life hunted by Devadaththa.. these are few examples..you can see so many examples in the net about this. any way lord Buddha loves Humans & Animals in equal & same way..

It is not only the Buddha but even his disciples liked dogs and all other animals. Here is a story about how a bhikku practiced giving when he didn’t have anything. It is about a Bhikkhu who once happened to eat his meal under a tree. By the time he finished eating his meal, a hungry dog who didn’t have anything to eat in few days after giving birth to its puppies came to him. Thero then put his finger in his throat and made him vomit. That dog then ate that vomit/food and quenched its hunger.
Many are the instances where the Buddha took examples of animals to drive a point across. The following is one such interesting parable from Samyutta Nikaya to bring to light the teaching of attachment, revulsion and detachment. The parable states :

"Suppose, brethren, a man catches six animals of diverse range and diverse pasturage, and tethers them with a stout rope. He catches a snake and tethers it with a stout rope; also a crocodile, a bird, a dog, a jackal, and a monkey; he tethers them with a stout rope. Having done so, brethren, he ties them together with a knot in the middle and sets them going. Now brethren, these six animals of diverse range and diverse pasturage would struggle to be off each one to his own range and pasture. The Snake would struggle, thinking I will enter the anthill. The crocodile I ‘ll enter the water, the bird I will mount into the air, the dog I ‘ll enter the village, the jackal would think I ‘ll go to charnel-field and the monkey would think I'll be off to the forest."1 (Six animals are six sense bases).
”… The same parable is continued to bring out the roles of the six senses with reference to the six animals. It says when those six hungry animals grew weary while they are tethered they would follow after the one of them that was stronger and they would conform to that one; thus they would become subject to him even so of the six senses.”

With reference to a Dog, the following is a story that Thanissaro Bhikku once shared in one of his Dhamma discussions:

”There’s a story they tell in Thailand of a dog who was changed into a prince. A princess met him, fell in love with him, and prevailed on her parents to let her marry him even though they didn’t know him. He looked like a prince, acted like a prince, but they didn’t know what kingdom he came from. But she was really in love with him, so she convinced her parents that he was a good prince worthy of being her husband. Yet this prince, even though he looked like a prince on the outside, still had the passions of a dog. One day the princess found him in the bathroom eating shit out of the toilet, as dogs do in Thailand. So of course he was thrown out of the palace. Went back to his life as a dog.”

In a Dhamma Sermon I listened to, Venerable Rajagiriye Ariyagñña Thero said that the Buddha has also advised not to keep pets, as it increases attachment and their death leads to the sorrow of the owner.

Hi Dan! If you could share with us the source of that claim, that will help others to have a better understanding about this issue. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores It was actually from a Dhamma Sermon I listened to by Venerable. Rajagiriye Ariyagñña Thero.

So it was Ven. Ariyagñña who advised that -- the answer is not directly quoting Buddha, e.g. from a sutta?

@ChrisW No Ven. Ariyagñña quoted it saying that Lord Buddha said it. He did not mention the particular Sutta nor did he mention when/where it was told.

buddha loved all animals and all humans  -  the thing is  you dont have to pet an animal to love it
i dont pet cows and chickens but im still vegan   - so he dosnt have to like petting them as long as his not hating them

Buddha overcame "like" and "don't like". You can be Buddhist even when you struggle with that yourself.

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


text:
Did lord buddha preach not to get angry even if a leg is cut?
Has lord Buddha preached not to get angry even if limbs are cut if you are a real follower of me? If so, please quote from the relevant sutta

Supreme Buddha said that even if someone were to cut you to pieces with a two-handed saw, if you got angry you wouldn’t be a true disciple of his -- Kakacupama Sutta: The Simile of the Saw, MN 21:

“Dear Monks, if a person does not get angry or form a hateful mind even when he is dragged, placed upside down, moved his legs to sides, and cut with a saw, he is indeed a disciple who recalls my advice.”

In this Dhamma article the Mahamevnawa Theravada Buddhist Monastery once elaborated on this as:

Thus the Supreme Buddha always preached and praised about living free of hatred. He preached that there is one circumstance in which a person cannot realize the Dhamma; that is when the Sangha is not peaceful. If the Sangha is not peaceful or someone acts to break their unity/peace, then one cannot practice the Dhamma since they blame each other. They blame one another saying that each person is wrong. In such situation, they cannot recall the Dhamma and instead they accumulate bad karma. These unwholesome deeds bring great misfortune. So remember that a hatred is formed in a person when he is either in an office, a house, a temple, or in any other place, it is not for the good of any person at all. It is a universal truth. It is because hatred never ends any quarrel. It is ended by not being hateful. It is a universal Dhamma. This Dhamma of the Supreme Buddha is a universal truth. What is this Dhamma? It is the spreading of loving-kindness. Ending hatred by not being hateful (a universal truth). The Supreme Buddha’s Dhamma is no longer exists in India where the Buddha’s Dhamma was born. What is the reason for the Dhamma to disappear from India? It is the hatred that formed in that time. As a result of hatred that formed in the people at that time, they argued and disgraced and insulted on each other. They further used governmental power for that. This resulted in hatred. Hatred is the reason for the Gautama Supreme Buddha’s Dhamma to vanish from India. Therefore, we should not practice to hate for one another. We shall spread our loving-kindness to all beings in all ten directions. One first spread loving-kindness to oneself and not give into being hateful. He dislikes to be angry or hateful and get rid of it quickly. He frees himself from hateful mind and practices the loving-kindness mind.

Thanks @Chris for finding the source. At times I copy only parts of what I read and not the full article. Also one of these days I have to learn how you get them in 'blue color' in shorten form (hyperlinking?).


text:
What does Buddhism say about dealing with negative people?
I live and work around a person (relative) whom is constantly negative in my life. He always belittles me about what I do, and whenever I succeed at something, he claims it was luck. When I fail at something, he usually mocks me or says it was my fault, or calls me deragatory terms. Given this is a relative, he does care about me, but I think it is from caring too much that he always puts me down or spreads negative karma when I am around him. If I am too afraid to do something, he calls me a coward.
Being that my environment calls for existing around this person for much of the time, is there any way I can respond as a Buddhist? It will be awhile before my living condition changes. I tried Metta and showing compassion, and I read stories on how Buddha had historically handled insults from strangers. The hard part about this is that this person is a relative and family member. I tell myself to not be attached to my ego or self image, but I am very much a beginner, and when reality hits me, I find my peace broken by the negativity. I find the day poisoned by this bad karma.
It is like I wish for others' opinions to not bother me or steal from my inner peace, but somehow what others say or think about me eventually robs me of the day's equanimity. Eventually I succumb to the negative energy. I always feel low in self-esteem after this happens. I always think as if I have failed in my practice by being bothered and robbed of my sense of harmony. One morning I woke up for Samatha meditation, and as soon as I left my room to begin the day I was greeted with a barrage of cold remarks.
I'm wondering what Buddha taught on this? I feel as if I am wrongly clinging to my self image or sense of self-worth in life. Sometimes I am mindful of it, and realize the attachment is there.
Thank you, peace on you all.

With an ensō (and "the beauty of imperfection") as an avatar, you might like a Zen story: Obedience. The story reminds me of my mother, a nursery school teacher (very young children) -- she said that instead of trying to control their behaviour by criticizing them, "I wait until they do something right and then praise them" (e.g. "Thank you for putting your work away", or "Thank you for sharing", or etc).
One of the funniest stories I remember was of one of her assistants who, instead of directly addressing and criticizing the whole class, raised her voice just loudly enough for everyone to hear and said to my mum: "Mrs. Teacher, where have all the quiet children gone?"

I can't easily fathom your relative's motive. You're talking about "self image": could it be that he wants you to be like him (or, like his image of himself), or that he wants to be like you?

Would it be fair to say that you are already behaving well? You say that your peace is stolen and your equanimity robbed, but I'm hoping you don't fuel the flames, e.g. try to take revenge on him and so on. If you can stay untainted by misbehaviour, harsh speech and so on even when he's making "cold remarks" then you're already doing well. This article for example claims that, "The satisfaction of leading a blameless life is the highest form of satisfaction that a layman can have".
I just want to add that "blameless" doesn't mean "holier than thou", which would be more self-image.

Anyway, to answer your question, "I'm wondering what Buddha taught on this?"
I wonder whether you might be interested in reading about "fame". That might be another side of the coin of what you're talking about -- i.e. being motivated by how we think others see us (and maybe identity-view too, how we see ourselves).
This search for 'fame' and 'lay' on Access to Insight finds articles that may be a useful introduction, or another perspective.

One more thing, is that your language includes the feeling of being "robbed" of your equanimity.
I think that's kind of a dangerous view to have; for example the Dhammapada starts with,

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

Perhaps that should be contrasted with the Zen story, The Moon Cannot Be Stolen.
You wrote, "Sometimes I am mindful of it, and realize the attachment is there"; but attachment isn't only to "self image or sense of self-worth in life" -- an attachment can also be to a "feeling" (such as equanimity), so thinking of it as "my equanimity" might be dangerous.
And maybe you're treating equanimity like glass, as if an equanimity could be broken; instead maybe you could see it as more fluid, less rigid or resistant, perhaps more like water (an ocean) or air or fire.
Or maybe a traditional metaphor is of the moon reflected in water, if the water is troubled then the image is harder to see, but the moon itself is not troubled.

The Buddha taught on three levels:

morals - skilful action;
concentration - non-judging mind;
wisdom - not-self.

Each of the three levels of practise can be used to address such issues.
On the moral level, the Buddha taught members of a family should cultivate four qualities:

truthfulness; honesty; straightforwardness (sacca)
training in self-improvement (dama)
patience; forbearance (khanti)
generosity; sacrifice (caga).

Therefore, on the moral level, you may straightforwardly, honestly & patiently communicate to the relative that their behavior is not constructive to a good family relationship & that you believe they should improve their manner of relating towards you.
Families can be different to other social interactions in that families are a constant. Being a constant, we can be more firm in our expectations & hopes. If a relative behaves in a rude manner towards me, I straightforwardly tell them I am not interested in such interactions.
The Buddha taught families that do not practise the five precepts (which includes good speech) will end up with troubles. The Buddha compared family members as 'fires' that must be tended safely.

the fact that you (and all of us) are susceptible to other people's opinions  is due to our ego, the sense of precious self
in this respect development of understanding of anatta is a useful strategy
and an excellent advice is given in the Āghātapaṭivinaya sutta 2 (AN 5.162) of only attending to pure qualities of a person

What the Buddha said about this was already answered in the last question about The Simile of the Saw:

"Suppose that a man were to come along carrying a burning grass torch and saying, 'With this burning grass torch I will heat up the river Ganges and make it boil.' Now, what do you think — would he, with that burning grass torch, heat up the river Ganges and make it boil?"
"No, lord. Why is that? Because the river Ganges is deep & enormous. It's not easy to heat it up and make it boil with a burning grass torch. The man would reap only a share of weariness & disappointment."
"In the same way, monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will equal to the river Ganges — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
  [...]
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

Of course it isn't a practical to say 'Just have loving kindness towards that person all the time'. But having in mind this simile can be great for such situations. One way of dealing with these situations is morality, having this attitude 'I am angry, but I'm not gonna let my speech & action be affected by that'. In some extreme cases you might consider leaving the situation, knowing 'I am not up to this yet'. The best way to do loving-kindness for this person is when this person is absent or you're in a different place (But don't begin with this person, the difficult persons have to come at the end of metta meditation after the loved ones). From a Buddhist point of view being confronted with difficult people is a great teacher. It shows you where there is attachment and work to do. Don't think 'He is stealing my peace', nobody can make you react to things except yourself.
Also from MN 8

But herein, Cunda, effacement should be practiced by you:

Others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will kill living beings; we shall abstain from killing living beings here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will take what is not given; we shall abstain from taking what is not given here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will be unchaste; we shall be chaste here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will speak falsehood; we shall abstain from false speech here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will speak maliciously; we shall abstain from malicious speech here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will speak harshly; we shall abstain from harsh speech here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will gossip; we shall abstain from gossip here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will be covetous; we shall not be covetous here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will have thoughts of ill will; we shall not have thoughts of ill will here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will have wrong views; we shall have right view here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will have wrong intention; we shall have right intention here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will use wrong speech; we shall use right speech here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will commit wrong actions; we shall do right actions here — thus effacement can be done.
Others will have wrong livelihood; we shall have right livelihood here — thus effacement can be done.


text:
If we tell lies to save lives, will that be a sin?
This page, Lay Buddhist Vows, says,

Do not distort fact
This one is usually translated as: don't lie. Again: it wider than that. Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable. This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact.

As per above phrase about 3rd precept of Pancha Sila, as a Buddhist if we tell lies it's definitely a sin. But in this modern world sometimes we have to lie: we will lie to our wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father; in this world you cannot find a person who has not lied.
So my question is, if tell so many lies to save lives, will it be a sin?

What "facts" are there within the Buddha's Teaching?  You can't turn what is subjective into an objective fact just because you want to. TRY FAITH it must be balanced with INTELLECT.

There is no sin. Even Jesus tells us this. If in some situation lying is the compassionate strategy and best avoids doing harm then it my be the right thing to do. After all, there is a sense sense in which the Buddha's 'First Turning of the Wheel' is deliberately economical with the truth, for the sake of being helpful. .

Wrong causes bad, for what ever reason, for whom ever done: MN 97: Dhanañjani Sutta — To Dhanañjani.

I think this question is a duplicate of:

Enlightened Lies - Can lying be the correct action in certain situations?
Should a person never lie?

"Duplicate" means that the answers to those questions should answer your question.

You wrote,

we have to lie, we will lie to wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father

... but I'm not sure that's true. If you read the definitions of Right Speech on Access to Insight, it includes,

He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal ...

If you feel the need to lie about something (e.g. your behaviour) then perhaps you should change your behaviour instead of lying about it. Therefore "not lying" becomes a "training rule".
The subject is difficult to talk about, though, because you didn't describe examples of the various lies, which you say we have to lie about to almost everyone.

Lastly, about the phrase you quoted.
The first bit of it, i.e...

don't lie

... is presumably clear enough.
So if you have a question about the quoted phrase, then maybe the question is about the next bit:

Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable.
This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact.

The second sentence isn't clear to me: it seems to me that a "distortion of fact" maybe is a lie by definition. See also e.g. Sankha's answer here for a more precise Theravada definition of lying.
Because I clearly don't understand the second sentence, I also don't understand the first:

The first might be talking about telling the truth in an acceptable way, e.g. about whether the truth is spoken gently and at the right time (which is acceptable) or harshly and at the wrong time (which is less easily accepted)
But it might also be talking about the opposite situations, "sugar-coating" a lie to make it seem acceptable, e.g. "I'll just tell my boss this little white lie: everyone else lies like this and I have to lie too."

Chris..i'm not Educated that much to understand your answer..by the way it's a good answer..

@RANSARA009 Sorry my answer isn't clear. Do you have any questions to ask about it, specific things you don't understand? And I didn't completely understand your question: how is telling lies to people "saving lives"? The phrase "saving a life" means "preventing someone from being killed, delaying death", what kind of lies do we have to tell to save lives? Anyway I think the best part of my answer, which I hope you understand, is the reference to this page which describes "Right speech" by quoting translations of suttas.

There are no sins in Buddhism, only skillful and unskillful behaviors. You have to ask yourself whether the behavior causes suffering. If it causes suffering you shouldn't do it. Not because it is a sin, but because it causes suffering.

Sins aren't unskillfull behavior? Your just arguing semantics. I don't see what furthur argument you could have.  People in this forum are too smart to be wise.

You are correct — I am arguing semantics. The word sin is not the correct word.

"Suffering" isn't necessarily the right translation either though, is it (see "dukkha"). I found this answer remarkable, where the venerable said that (in that hypothetical and most extraordinary circumstance, an "extreme case") he would lie AND "make amends" afterward for breaking the precept (I guess that lying might a fault requiring confession, or something like that, according to the Vinaya).

What matters is whether the lie teller has sinful intentions or not when telling the lie. The precepts where never meant to be mechanically followed because we read it in the Vinaya. The precepts are guidelines, not commandments.

And who judges what is sinful? The idea of sin is conceptual and subjective. Neither represents truth.

The point is we don't want to suffer and  when we do things to cause suffering...for others or ourselves consciously or subconsciously then that is what is meant by sinful or unwholesome. The Buddha only said this action you make will lead you to  your suffering and that will lead to others suffering. He just said what he experienced directly without the delusional effect of concepts. He wasn't judging but just seeing what is. Here we rely on the Buddha's teaching to help us discern what is. When your hand is in front of your face how do you judge it's there? What do you think?

And did Buddha call it “sin?”

Seriously? Your clinging to your views on Christianity , I bet. It's just a word that means doing wrong,  bad karma, unwholesome The Buddha never said many English words.

Yes, seriously. A sin by definition is a violation or transgression against some divine law, not just bad karma or unwholesome. Right and wrong is a subjective judgment. Buddha, as far as I an aware, did not pass judgment on what is right or what is wrong — only whether something causes suffering. Is something sinful because it causes suffering? No, it simply causes suffering so it should be avoided. Not because it’s wrong but because it causes suffering. I don’t think the Buddha accepted notions of divine law.

Silence is not a lie. Honesty is spoken.
If your believe in sin you do not understand self.

An Arahant is said to never deliberately tell a lie. That draws the line and it gives a categorical answer to your question.
A lie is always best not told.

Honored Buddhaparisada, Good householder, interested,
Telling what isn't true, to lie, means taking away what is true, stealing, harming. Having harmed, what one gives, one receives.
But be clear that abstaining from "taking away, destroying, lie, does not require to give something. Simply not taking is enough. Understand the way out of doing simply wrong anyway?
(Note that this isnt given for trade, exchande, stacks or what ever binds one here, but to escape from this wheel, release!)

JK_431_HARITA-JATAKA Which precept is the most important? How to avoid Sexual Misconduct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y-rLyzavgw
"...In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, take what is not given him, commit adultery, drink strong drink, but he may not tell a lie, attended by deception that violates the reality of things. ..."
[If you find out one small / white lie in Buddha teaching, then all Buddha teachings are worthless... become entertainment..... even a small lie to save million lives....  Buddha talked, spoken from what he saw and know .. not from brainstorm thinking, logic for argument like mind driven people such as socialists, globalists, communists, idealist, philosopher, dogmatic professors ….  which look like very reasonable (because of words / senses limitation by the speaker & listeners)  but may not true .....They said what they guess not what they see .... they said by mind driven for the "End justify the mean"...]


text:
Feeling of Superiority and what to do about it?
Sometimes I can see myself feeling superior to others because of what I know and they don't . I know that it is my ego which raises it head and is active at the moment. I also see persons, who are successful in profession, business, sports display show of superiority just to break the opponent's composure. Often ego needs bolstering and acknowledgement to survive the life's challenges. My question is how to achieve the balance without pampering the ego and without showing disrespect to others, by own accomplishment, knowledge, possession, gender, class etc and carry on.

A related question (whose answers you might find interesting): How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? This isn't a duplicate, though, because that question asked "what is?" and this question is asking "how to?"

would help to know if you are coming from a theravada, mahayana, meditation, practice

as what i've read usually links spiritual pride to thinking you are equal to a buddha, or due to supernormal powers. i think there may be some overlap with the meditative absorptions too, but can't quite recall and am away from books

lay buddhist, no particular school

This is perhaps due to seeing your journey on the path as "self improvement".  Chögyam Trungpa wrote a book addressing this exact issue: Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism that I have found to be very helpful in providing insight to this trap.
Ultimately, the spiritual path involves awakening the mind and eliminating ego.  "Bolstering" the ego may seem to help but often results in allowing the ego to use spirituality to reinforce its own power over your mind.

If we become successful at maintaining our self-consciousness through spiritual techniques, then genuine spiritual development is highly unlikely.  Our mental habits become so strong as to be hard to penetrate.  We may even go so far as to achieve the totally demonic state of complete "Egohood".

Also from this book:

Retreat to nature, isolation, simple, quiet, high people-- all can be ways of shielding oneself from irritation, all can be expressions of the Lord of Form.

When an answer is a reference (to a book or other resource), we usually ask that you also summarize or quote from the reference (beyond what you already wrote: that a cause of the problem is "seeing your journey on the path as self-improvement"). Ideally that (a bit of summary or quote) might: a) Help to make it a more self-contained answer b) Explain how the answer is correct (show how the reference answers the question) c) Help readers decide whether they might find it helpful to acquire and read the reference. Does the book say much about "what to do about it"? How is it "very helpful"? :-)

@ChrisW, thank you for your helpful suggestion.  I have edited my answer and hopefully it is more informative.

ego is one aspect

One'd use the same approach to solve the problem like everything else in life: first is to get a clear understanding about the nature of that problem, then spend time to contemplate, and finally apply the proper methodology to solve it. So, the first thing to investigate is to clearly understand the nature of that "feeling of superiority". The Buddha taught about it in quite a few suttas here.

In his book “Further Along the Road Less Traveled: Self-love Versus Self-esteem”,  M. Scott Peck talks about the difference between the two.  In it he says that one being in love with one’s self esteem is NOT a good thing. A person being in love with oneself is good. It is an overall self-acceptance of who one is as a person, despite all of the foibles and faults.
In the scriptures - especially in the fourth chapter of the Suttanipāta I it says that it is not good to even grasp/cling onto one’s sense of goodness, because such clinging only reinforces identifying  with self-view. It only leads to moral superiority or in other words one’s self esteem. So instead we should have thoughts on the superiority of the Dhamma, as nothing excels Dhamma. So even when discussing of our own experiences it is good to refer /writing in third person (writing from the third person point of view).
Say for example, an individual who meditates inquires from a friend “How is your practice? How are you doing? Depending on the answer one will feel inferior, and the other will feel superior.  Did the result of such a conversation be beneficial to either one of them?  The Arahant are the only ones who have eliminated all types of conceit. Not only the superiority and the inferiority complex, but the complex one of feeling equal (seyya mana, hinamana Sadisamana).
So if you get a chance to read M. Scott Pecks books like People of the Lie and The Road Less Traveled, etc. you will be able to distinguish between  Narcissism and self-love.

I will answer honestly, with my impressions from what I've read, in translation.
I've read some monks say that buddhism is good for the ego, but there's just no way that they can mean the competitive ego that strives to be better than others. Maybe mindfulness can help with that, but the entire practice of buddhism is, like Abrahamic religion can seem to be, based on humility and respect.
You do have the recorded sayings of zen masters, but these are performed in a tightly knit community of monks. Sure they are competing, and it is perhaps quite similar to highly aesthetic game, but the goal is found in the bodhisattva vows (to save all sentient beings through your own efforts), at near any cost.
In no way am I saying you don't get anything at all, but would suggest that if "what I know" is about the dharma, the best response is "no merit"; abandon some of your ideas!!

I practice the Zen tradition so I believe once you realise the meaning of emptiness then one is able to understand that the concepts of superiority or inferiority, are the result of the deluded mind creating separation.
It reminds me of the famous Bodhidarma talk with emperor Wu:

The emperor told Bodhidharma that he had built temples and given
  financial support to the monastic community, and asked the patriarch
  how much merit he had gained for these actions. Bodhidharma replied,
  "None whatsoever." Perplexed, the emperor then asked the eminent monk
  who he was to tell him such things, to which he answered, "I don't
  know."


text:
How To Follow Buddhism Without Offending
I am wondering how to go about starting on the path of Buddhism without offending or appropriating the culture. As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged with the ability to overlook the repercussions of my actions when adopting a new practice/lifestyle what have you.
I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it - but I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist. I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture" and I also don't want to offend those who's cultures were shaped by it.
I guess what I'm asking is - how can I start myself on the path respectfully in a manner that shows my true reverence for the teachings of the Buddha? I have privately tried my best to follow the path for some time now, but I've realized I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it.
Advice?

Just one note, in my tradition, we sometimes tell that we are not Buddhists, but we practice Budhism, this is to emphasize that Budhism is just not belonging to a group of people with common interests, but to stress the importance of the continous practice. Metta

what exactly is so humiliating about "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture" are whites superior?

@AbelTom see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation -- it's sometimes (or by some people) seen as insensitive, politically incorrect, offensive, to want to adopt elements of another culture.

@AbelTom can you explain your comment? not being bostile at all, just can't tell what angle you're coming from. it sounds like a hostile phrase, playing two races off against each other. then again obsessions -- with people you don't know -- can be viewed with suspicion

i feel you must live in a particularly diddicult place. Around here, in Yorkshire, England, it is not uncommon for people to mention they're a Buddhist student or practitioner. Indeed. there seems to be something of an epidemic.

Well, I'm just going to give my two cents, based on not being raised a Buddhist or in a Buddhist etc. nation.
You can read about the effects of cultural appropriation, and decide if you want to call yourself a Buddhist, practice as one, etc.. I had never encountered this in scholarship, but it doesn't exist peculiar to Buddhism only. There'll be blogs discussing it, but who do you believe?
I think the question of religion, like philosophy and ethics, is not just cultural. So (and I wouldn't want to affect concern) if you feel Buddhism could be sound on these accounts, and / or you need it (to be?), then I would suggest retaining your interest, and concern.
I embraced reading about it because it felt right to. Terms like "Buddhist" don't seem as important, which may be offensive but also seems right. IME asking people "is this offensive" is offensive, and you have to ultimately have to make that judgement yourself, short of being ordained or something.
I hope that you get the answer you're looking for!

Incidentally, I asked this question of a philosopher who lectures on cultural appropriation, but is more concerned with e.g. white musicians playing the blues, over religion. Their answer -- in paraphrase -- was: most religions are keen for new adherents; with its reach and varieties it's unlikely to class as "cultural appropriation".

Thank you for your response! I suppose you're right and it doesn't necessarily matter if you take on the label.

As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged
That's as may be.
Nevertheless I think that "cultural appropriation" is a relatively modern obsession: that it has become fashionable for "holier-than-thou" people in college to fuss about it; but sfaik other people are less likely to think that way (to see or preconceive it as a concern).
I suppose if you've heard of Buddhism, maybe "Buddhism" has begun to be present "your culture" too.
Also your being born into a place and time where you're able to be interested in Buddhism (not only human, but able to hear and understand Buddhist teaching) might be seen as a good thing, a fruit of good kamma. I suspect that Buddhists might feel Mudita towards your good fortune, such as it is.
I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist
Yes. Well there are other ways to phrase a declaration if the situation arises; for example:

I'm interested in Buddhism
As you said, "I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it"
I find Buddhism helpful for X or Y reason
I study or practice with this or that group, or with such and such a teacher

Some people on this site (see these topics) don't like the -ism (Buddhism) word. Buddhist as an adjective is a bit more precise, maybe paired with a noun like (Buddhist) Dharma or (Buddhist) practice etc.
I too have "felt uneasy", by the way:

If said to someone, "I am Buddhist" or "I am a Buddhist", then would that misrepresent Buddhism ... am I a bad examplar, might I put other people off Buddhism?
Is it even true (is that a true statement about myself)?
Is it an view of self, a conceit, a misguided thing to say?
Would it make other people inclined to see me (and Buddhism) as alien?

Such unease could be egocentric nonsense, but anyway, with that kind of thing in mind I have preferred to make declarations that are more concrete, kind of objectively true, sensible (tangible), justifiable: for example "I have been interested in" etc. ("I verb a noun" rather than "I am an adjective").
In a slightly analogous way I'm content to be vegetarian (i.e. to eat vegetarian food) but I'm usually less comfortable with saying so to other people ... in case people think I'm weird (I've been doing it for so long that I think it's normal, it's normal for me) or that I'm judgmental i.e. that I think that they too ought to be vegetarian (it's common but not normal in my culture, some 10% of the total population).
I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture"
I suppose we don't have total control over how other people see us. If someone sees you as a white guy, that's their privilege burden. :-)
Maybe how you see yourself (or attach to a view-of-self) that's more to the immediate point.
If having "an obsession with asian culture" is said to be wrong, my guess would be that's because "culture" is ephemeral and distant, and "obsession" might be harmful. Whereas instead, Dharma (as opposed to culture) is meant to be akalika (timeless or immediate) ... practical. And being harmless (causing no injury) is one of the Buddhist virtues.
I also don't want to offend those whose cultures were shaped by it
I don't see why you'd offend. To be inoffensive, don't claim to know more or to be better, "don't criticize what you can't understand", be a friend. Beware of the elements of Right Speech.
I don't remember anyone telling me I shouldn't be interested in Buddhism.
Normally if you share someone's interest they see that as a good thing.
Look at the "Dhamma gifts" available (i.e. people trying to share Dhamma), I think they're there because the donors want the gifts to be available to us.
how can I start myself on the path respectfully
One answer (or non-answer) is that there are many "dharma gates": i.e. it's up to you and your environment.
Some people choose to "Take the Triple Refuge".
You can practice with (and/or live with) a group of Buddhists, study with a teacher, study texts, find or make a good friend, do good, be generous.
I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it
Ah yes. I don't know if that's true. :-)
If you look at, the 'fetters' which are abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment in the Theravada tradition, the question is maybe tangled up in two of these fetters: i.e. maybe "identity view" includes "I can never truly embrace it" and "declaring myself Buddhist"; and "making a declaration" might be mistaken for a "right and ritual".
And what you said about needing "courage" also isn't necessarily quite canonical: maybe what you want instead of "courage" is a "confidence" or a lack of doubt.
Or maybe it's called faith and energy.
I'm not trying to say you're wrong about courage, but if you can't seem to summon enough of it maybe it's something else (e.g. confidence and so on, right view, etc.) you could develop instead.
Or I suspect that courage and so on might be part of a Buddhist training, but maybe a Mahayana training of a sort that requires a teacher or at least a group to practice with?

I just want to thank you so much for your response. It really has given me a lot to think about and reflect on. I think you may be right that some of my concerns are egocentric, and any hesitance I have may be primarily based on fear of looking a certain way to others. I think finding a teacher would be beneficial to me.

I suggest that you do not overthink matters in relation to Buddhism. Remember that the Buddha was not a Buddhist. He practiced The Way and then showed others how to overcome suffering in their lives. This is basically it. Do Good-Avoid Evil and Purify your Mind. The value in The Buddha Way is not in intellectualism but rather within the intuitive practices. You can become your greatest teacher just find your Way.

I think specifically when you are facing this problem you have specific people in mind who might judge you for being a Buddhist. Contemplate on who these people are and why might they object and what is the fear that is driving you to not say this out loud. For example being raised in a Hindu Brahmin household, my family hated the fact that I had turned to Buddhism as my spiritual path. I was often mocked , humiliated and insulted by my family often to the point where I started developing an irrational fear that they would take my Dhamma away from me. Due to the fact that I started developing such negative mind-states , I stopped commenting on people's questions about my spirituality. Also because when you announce this to everyone and as a human you have a failing , when you do something wrong , people often quip " so this is what your religion is teaching you". Its a very double edged sword.
In the Brahmajala Sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html) Buddha said :
"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?"
Hence , if you are afraid of censure from the outside world , it will work against your own spiritual development. As the whole practice of Buddhism is about looking inward.
However if you find that speaking about it would generate negative mind-states , best not speak about it with people you know are going to react with censure or insults.
Cultivate a close relationship with a Sangha and interact with people who understand the jewel that the Dhamma is.

Appropriate the culture of the Noble Ones, not the Asian culture.
Practicing the teachings one venerates the Buddha and nobody in the universe can rightly censure you for it.
The immeaditely visible Buddhist culture with temples, customs, teachings and traditions were mostly shaped during the last 300 years and are not necessarily based on Canonical texts which weren't then as easily accessible as they are nowadays.

Yes.   As an English speaking American white male, I am fully aware of the irony of my practicing the Buddha way.  I know that certain Sutras would have never been translated into English, if the British Empire had not established a hostile colonial presence in India and China.  My own exposure to Mahayana Buddhism came through the Sokka Gakkai sect, which was brought to America via Japanese war brides in the mid-twentieth century.
And most of my research into Buddhism came through the Internet, which was invented for military purposes and made public by for-profit companies.
So, how is it okay for me and us to be Buddhist?
You could try to justify it with a pro-white pride argument; Shakyamuni Buddha himself was literally a blue-eyed white male.  (For goodness sake, don't seriously internalize that argument; it is not in accordance with the dharma.)  You could make the contrast between Europe's empires and other imperial powers.  British and American scholars translated Buddhist texts into English; by contrast, many texts in India were permanently lost during periods of Islamic rule.  (This also does not lend itself easily to philosophical pacifism, or interfaith understanding.)
You should never claim permission to practice the Buddha dharma except by appealing to the dharma itself.  The Buddha set in motion the wheel of the dharma; he came to liberate all living beings.  He preached to all who would hear, even to cruel conquerors and war lords.  The Buddha taught against the caste system; he therefore opposed all claims of spiritual hierarchy and exclusive legitimacy based upon tradition or lineage.
The Buddha came down from the Tucita heaven, took on the agonizing and rotting body of an ape, and an ape's limited brain and five senses.  And he was born in the palace of a king and queen, and walked away from all his lawful worldly possessions, accepting for alms only the food he ate.   He gave and taught the dharma to flawed and foolish mortals, in exchange for nothing.  How dare anybody then say to me, "my ancestors lived in the country of the Buddha, and yours did not!"  Or, "some of your ancestors killed some of mine, and stole their money!"
The dharma is, in itself, the solution to war; it is the solution to exploitation, greed, and inequality.  It liberates all who hear.  That is why nobody should be forbidden to hear or practice the dharma.

Don't practice the culture or Buddhism.
Practice what the Buddha taught.
I bet Jesus said the same thing elsewhere but in another language, culture and interpretation.


text:
Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts
Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts?
Killing a Buddha results in (immediate) rebirth in avici; what is the karma for cheating on your spouse?
Karma is karma, but I'm asking merely because I don't think many people realise it is considered important in Buddhism.

Ask yourself if the misconduct will bring about less suffering for any being.
Bring yourself to be honest with the person you wronged, take on their burdens.
Only once the suffering is forgiven will you see your true life potential Buddha nature.

light karma from sexual misconduct is creating enemies (someone who is delighted to see your destruction).  heavy karma is to be born in suffering realms (hell, animal wombs, hungry ghosts).
No need to have supernatural power to see this.. wives, mistresses, girlfriends, husbands, boyfriends, parents of children under their custody, etc. will try to get back at cheaters.  I will post reference if I find the Sutta.

The story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi in the scriptures, is a good example of karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts. She became aware of the secret of the cause of her suffering only after she attained Arahantship.

She realized seven births prior to her current birth she had being born a male.  During that life he had molested young girls.  After his death he was born in hell.  He suffered in hell for a considerable period of time.  Next he was born a monkey.  Attacked by an older monkey he was wounded.  The wound festered.  The festered wound did not heal for a long time and finally died after much suffering.  His ‘kamma’ was not over. He was born a goat, next a cow and suffered similar fates.  Thereafter he was born a human being.  He was born a female.  Her mother was a low caste poor servant.  One day debtors took the young girl away from the mother.  Her life ended thus.  Finally she was fortunate to be born during the time of the Buddha and was liberated from the sufferings of ‘samsara’.  Thus we all should realize that we should reform our inner selves by conforming to the Dhamma if we are to attain liberation.

The Buddha taught us that one finds a faithful, loving and committed spouse as a result of their past actions. Those who did not engage in sexual misconduct, and those who stayed faithful to their husbands and wives in their past lives, in turn receive loving and faithful spouses in their prospective lives. But those who engaged in sexual misconduct in their past lives face results of their unwholesome actions in their present or future lives. Hence, the Buddha advised us to restraint from engaging in sexual misconduct and to cultivate love and faithfulness to one’s partner.