text:
How and when does one not invest in others in Buddhism?
It is my understanding that there were instances that the Buddha discontinued the teachings to a number of people.
Putting aside the concept of me and others, i am often in the situation whereby i have continued to demonstrate that there are better ways to a given situation e.g. conflict, methodology, etc. People often continue down this path where it often leads to the very situation that could be avoided. This in turn results in more conflict, distrust, etc.
This often leads to a moment of befuddlement since i am unable to comprehend the nature of people. Although we appear to have evolved and consider ourselves civilized, rather than direct conflict, these often result in passive aggressiveness which further erodes relationships and growth since now people harbor negative or non-conducive emotions.
It also requires substantial emotional, mental and physical investment to help others.
How does one step away from 'teaching' or 'imparting' to others especially if one is in regular contact with them and depend on them to complete their responsibilities?

The Buddha discusses this in the Kesi Sutta which is summarized here by Thanissaro Bhikku. Some students are more prepared to learn, some need to be coaxed to learn, and then there are others who never want to learn. And similarly in your case with whom to help and whom not to.

Once, when a horse trainer came to see the Buddha, the Buddha asked him how he trained his horses. The trainer said that some horses
  responded to gentle training, others to harsh training, others
  required both harsh and gentle training, but if a horse didn't respond
  to either type of training, he'd kill the horse to maintain the
  reputation of his teachers' lineage. Then the trainer asked the Buddha
  how he trained his students, and the Buddha replied, "In the same
  way." Some students responded to gentle criticism, others to harsh
  criticism, others to a mixture of the two, but if a student didn't
  respond to either type of criticism, he'd kill the student. This
  shocked the horse trainer, but then the Buddha explained what he meant
  by "killing": He wouldn't train the student any further, which
  essentially killed the student's opportunity to grow in the practice.

These kinds of questions will always be difficult to answer because we only have one side of the story. We lack the vital perspective that comes from a. knowing you, and b. knowing the people that you are in conflict with. The fact that you are in conflict, but don't seem to be able to acknowledge your part in creating the conflict tells me that I don't have the full story. However, one of my teachers gave me some excellent general advice on communication some years ago: he said that if a communication goes badly, then assume that you have not expressed enough mettā.
In order to relate empathetically one must drop one's own agenda (as teacher or benefactor) and try to feel what they feel and then ascertain the reasons they feel that way. One has to put oneself in their shoes. To do this one must drop all pretence of being superior and of having something to teach them. Drop all the conceit. If you have something they value, they'll ask you about it. That the situation has devolved to the extent you intimate, suggests that you are in conflict with their values. Perhaps you present yourself to them incongruously - you see yourself as having something to teach them, but they don't think of you as having anything to teach them.
I think one is already in trouble if one is modelling oneself on the Buddha or if one is relating to people on the basis of "teaching" them or having something to "impart". It sounds like this is getting in the way of you establishing an empathetic relationship with them. Is the problem that they refuse to see you as a "teacher"? Is that why you are labelling their response to you as "passive aggressive"?
The general principle of Buddhist ethics is that when things go wrong, that we looks for our own unskilful motivations. The unenlightened (dare I presume you are one of us?) are always motivated by attraction and aversion. Sometimes when things go wrong, one must just own up to one's own unskilful motivations. It can be difficult, because it is humiliating or humbling (depending on how you see it). In relating to other people we only have control of our side of the relationship. If things don't go right, we can only ask ourselves if our own attraction or aversion has soured things.
Of course there are times when it is better to walk away. If one realises that one is too entrenched in attraction and aversion to make a change, for example. Sometimes the necessary change is too great to manage in the short term. But one cannot blame the other. For this. If relations break down, it is our own failure. Generally speaking if we are expressing mettā rather than conceit, there is no need for relations to break down. Of course, it's a big ask.
But if the thought is "if only these people would follow my advice" then I would see this as problem of conceit, not of unreceptiveness.

Thanks Jayarava. I am intrigued by your answer since it touches on a number of points of consideration. The first being, there is a lack of information about me and others. If i look at it from my perspective in empathizing with others, there is a lack of information. In some instances people open up easily and in other situations, less likely so because of the experiences they have had. In the latter, it requires more investment in time and effort which is often scarce depending on the circumstances e.g. other responsibilities.

Assuming there has been an attempt to empathize with others and one has dropped one's motivations and agendas, (this also suggests that empathizing is not an agenda or motivation), one can be confronted with the willingness to reciprocate. Empathy without willingness by others requires significant investment in time. I say this is because in any relationship, both parties have to be willing. If one party is simply not coming to the table for any number of reasons, one may empathize as much as possible however this leads to every few positive outcomes

I liken this to the notion of seeing a train crash. If one sees that the actions of others is leading to an undesirable outcome for all concerned and although you empathize with the person or people, one may called upon to act. This call to action may be seen as help, a challenge, etc or in some instances if the act is to walk away, it may be perceived as abandonment, unhelpful, etc.

I do not disagree with the principle of looking at oneself especially if one has played a role in the conflict. I do not agree if relationships breakdown, it is own failure. As previously commented, if there is no willingness to reciprocate, all concerned are at fault some more than others. The challenge is if you know this ahead of time e.g. train crash and you are called upon to act, this places considerable pressures on the choice of the act e.g. do you challenge, do you walk away, do you do nothing, etc.

There are many variables that lead to this situation such as time, environment, culture, experience, biases, etc. If one is to drop all agendas and motivations, there must be the ability to look at all variables  not just a few since this is similar to not seeing the forest for the trees.

No one is likely to read or respond to essays in the comments section - which is why there's a short word limit on them. If you have an alternative answer, then post it as an answer.

It is a reply to your answer.

We don't do "replies" here. We each do our own answer and the community votes for the best answer.

Thanks and i find your comment intriguing. If one doesn't raise questions or attempts to interpret by replying, how does the one answering know it has been beneficial. Voting for the best answer does not always indicate the best approach especially if there are clarifications being sought. It's my opinion.

I have only a little to add as the answer submitted by Jayarava Attwood is quite comprehensive. But here is the little bit I would add.
A couple of things in your question, such as the reference to depending on people to complete their responsibilities, made me wonder if you were referring to a work situation. If that is the case, it's extremely important to not try to impart your religious values on others with whom you work or supervise. It's not fair and one needs to imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and someone was trying to impart their own religious teachings on you. It could be quite unwelcome and depending on where you live, even against various laws governing the workplace.
Modeling the behavior you want others to emulate is always safest. A steady meditation practice can help greatly in reducing or even eliminating the irritation one feels at the behavior of others. It's possible to develop a bit of equanimity within oneself that allows one to function effectively in the workplace without becoming ruffled by those who are less than ideal in their behavior.
And if it wasn't the workplace you were referring to, hopefully something here is helpful anyway. Best wishes. :)

These are all quite good answers to my mind. The essential point is that we must always work first and foremost on ourselves, starting wherever we are. The more we clean up our own hearts and minds, the more helpful we will be to ourselves and others- with absolutely no need to assert any doctrine. I wanted to add that at least in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism there's a strong tradition of the teacher carefully examining the student and vice versa before the process of teaching ever begins. So it is really important to consider the situation and to have a student who really wants to learn and enact something you are confident you actually understand  before ever presuming to teach.  Without that, much better to treat your friends, family and colleagues as quite possibly having more to teach you than you have to teach them.


text:
Can all human beings potentially be enlightened in this lifetime?
Does any Buddhist school or tradition make the assertion that all human beings have the capacity to be enlightened in this lifetime? Or to put it the other way are there groups of people who it just is not possible for them to become enlightened and they have to wait for a better rebirth? Do different traditions differ on this? Does any tradition make the claim that particular human beings will never be enlightened no matter what even in subsequent rebirths?

Some mahayana sutras speak of enlightenment even for icchantikas. Also, Sangharakshita and his western Buddhist order have claimed any practitioner of twenty or thirty years in their tradition will get stream entry at the minimum. It's another thing that there's no evidence as far as I know for this claim.

@Buddho the western Buddhist order is my sangha and Sangharaskshita is one for these kind of bold (outrageous) statements. I think I'm going to ask a question around it as it is an interesting statement. Hope you don't mind me pinching your research for a question.

By all means go ahead, I made the reference to it in part because I knew of your affiliations with Triratna from elsewhere on this site where you've mentioned it.

As far as I understood, the (Mahayana-) Mahaparinirvana-Sutra was composed some generations after the Buddha's death; but it might be interesting that it contains the new, previously unknown, notion of "icchantica(s)" - people who are not able to become enlightended because they are so ... evil? stupid? compassionless? (Don't know the exact idea).

Update: Ah, here is some paraphrase from the presenting site, Dr. Tony Page:

(...)
  i) That the noble Mahaparinirvana Sutra possesses the power to
  bring about "benefit, happiness and kindness for all beings" - with
  the one possible exception of those termed icchantikas, the most
  spiritually deluded of persons, who disparage the sutra and reject its
  teachings on the Tathagatagarbha; (...)

And here some excerpts from the Sutra (.pdf-file) itself:

Let us hope always to learn Dharma. We shall draw out the tongues of
  those who slander the Buddha’s Wonderful Dharma.  (pg. 5)
The icchantika possesses the Buddha-Nature, but overspread by
  innumerable defilements, he cannot hope to get out [of his cocoon of
  defilements], analogous to the silkworm.  For this reason, he cannot
  gain the all-wonderful cause of Enlightenment, but repeats birth and
  death unendingly. (p.128)
All this comes about through the working of the divine medicine of
  the Mahayana Great Nirvana Sutra. All beings are deposited in peace,
  except the mahanaga and the icchantika (p.130)
Ever since, I have never once had occasion to commit myself to the
  evil actions of defilement and evil karmic relations, or to slander
  Wonderful Dharma, to become an iccantika, to be born with imperfect
  genital organs, or no genital organs, or dual genital organs, to act
  against my parents, to kill an arhat, to break a stupa or the law of
  the Sangha, to cause blood to flow from a Buddha’s body, or to commit
  the four grace offences.   (p.156)

Note, that this sutra (at least in its translation) refers in its text to itself , similar to a platform of a political party...

Additional remark: for me things like those (the appearance of new ideas later in history, and for instance the idea of attacking people because they disparage the sutra and reject its teachings) are strong signals/markers/alarms that something is beginning to go wrong with the transmission of the dharma (I didn't see something similar in the palicanon-suttas) So I don't think, the idea of enlightnenment-disabled people is not historic in the palicanon.

I generally very much agree with your last point; however, it seems when looking at the sutta which Sankha linked to in his answer, that this idea is perhaps not an entirely new one, even to the Pali Canon, perhaps just approached somewhat differently ?

The Nirvana Sutra, however, says, "All living beings alike possess the Buddha nature," thus revealing that icchantikas can also attain Buddhahood. The Lotus Sutra says, "At the start I {the Buddha} took a vow, hoping to make all persons equal to me, without any distinction between us, and what I long ago hoped for has now been fulfilled." In this sutra, Devadatta, who symbolizes the icchantika, is assured of becoming a Buddha in the future.

@Ryan : if one wants to go to extreme then one can even refer to the idea with which the king-of-the-devas, Sakko, persuaded the just becoming Buddha: "there might be some having a clearer eye - they might be lost if you wouldn't help them with your teaching" (I don't have the exact words). From this one can conclude, that -no question- some or even many exist which shall not arrive awakening in their lifetime; a concept existing obviously in the early time of the Dharma. But compared with the concept in the Nirvana-Sutra for me this is a qualitative and complete difference

@Buddho: have you seen my citation from pg 128? I cannot read the whole sutra, but I searched for "iccant" and "icchant" and for me it seemed the occurence of the phrase "(...) except of the icchantikas(...)" is nearly ubiquituous indicating a massive intention to introduce some quasi-political dualism. (But don't let us make this a long discussion, I'm not ready for such at the moment)

@GottfriedHelms I did and in any case what I wrote isn't my view - it is merely an extract from the SGI definition of icchantika. I was adding it as a useful point of discussion because the idea and relevance of icchantikas is definitely controversial. Needless to say there's views on both sides - that they are definitely never ever going to be enlightened is one, and then there are the bodhisattvas who insist that they won't be enlightened either until the last icchantika gets enlightened. So it throws the esoteric Buddhist world into some confusion.

@Buddho: ... so I'm preparing food now for me and my spouse ... :-)

In the Ugghaṭitaññū Sutta (AN. ii. 135) the Buddha says that there are
  four kinds of person found in this world: those who are quick in
  acquiring, those who learn by means of a detailed exposition, those
  who may be guided, and those for whom the letter [of the Teaching]
  alone is the highest thing. In the Abhidhamma Piṭaka these are defined
  as follows:
What sort of person is quick in acquiring (ugghaṭitaññū)? The person
  for whom there is penetration of the Dhamma at the very time when it
  is being taught is called “quick in acquiring.”
What sort of person is one who learns by means of a detailed
  exposition (vipañcitaññū)? The person for whom there is penetration of
  the Dhamma when the meaning of what has been taught in brief is later
  analysed in detail is called “one who learns by means of a detailed
  exposition.”
What sort of person is one who may be guided (neyya)? The person for
  whom penetration of the Dhamma comes gradually by means of recitation,
  questioning, proper attention, and by serving, cultivating and waiting
  upon kalyānamittas is called “one who may be guided.”
What sort of person is one for whom the letter alone is the highest
  thing (padaparama)? The person for whom penetration of the Dhamma will
  not come in this life, however much [of the Teaching] he may hear and
  speak and bear in mind or recite, is called to be “one for whom the
  letter alone is the highest thing.” (Puggalapaññatti 41-2; Designation
  of Human Types 58)
Regarding the fourth type, the padaparama, his lack of potential for
  awakening in the present life may be due to a number of factors. Most
  padaparamas were already such before they were even born, when still
  in their mothers' wombs. Only humans conceived with a triple-rooted
  relinking consciousness (i.e., one accompanied by all three kusala
  roots: non-greed, non-hate and non-delusion) have the possibility of
  attaining jhāna or the noble path in their present life. Those with
  fewer kusala roots than this are all padaparamas.
Even those who have been reborn with such a consciousness may still be
  padaparamas. In the Puggalapaññati Atthakathā (PuggA. 184-5)
  Buddhaghosa lists six causes for incapacity to attain the paths and
  fruits in the present life; in each case the state is reckoned as one
  that lacks the requisite decisive support condition
  (upanissaya-paccaya). A similar list is also given in the
  Paṭisambhidāmagga (Paṭi. i. 123), but here I will use Buddhaghosa's as
  the Paṭisambhidāmagga's version does not supply any explanation.

Obstruction by kamma (kammāvaraṇa); meaning those who have committed one of the five anantariyaka kammas.
Obstruction by defilement (kilesāvaraṇa); meaning those who hold to any of the ten niyata wrong views ("there is no giving, no
  sacrifice... etc.").
Obstruction by kammic ripening (vipākāvaraṇa); meaning those who were reborn with only a double-rooted or a rootless relinking
  consciousness.
Lack of faith (assaddha); "one lacking faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha."
Lack of zeal/desire-to-act (acchandika); defined as being one who either lacks chanda in the sense of desiring to undertake what is
  kusala.
Being weak in wisdom (duppañña); defined as those in whom the bhavaṅga-citta of that lifetime lacks the mental factor of paññā (this
  in fact overlaps with #3, for it is the relinking consciousness that
  determines the character of the bhavaṅga-citta in any lifetime).
  Blockquote

Above is copied from the answer given here by ven. Dhammanado

Does any tradition make the claim that particular human beings will
  never be enlightened no matter what even in subsequent rebirths?

It is said that those who are with Niyata Micchāditthi will be stuck in Samsara indefinitely. They are also called as beings who are tied to a pole in Samsara. They are said to be born in the Lokantarika hell when the world system gets destroyed. It is considered even worse than committing one of the 5 heinous crimes.

Anyone who simply changes the way they think could potentially be enlightened in this lifetime. The critical point is that people are not willing or able to change their viewpoint. If one thinks that what s/he is experiencing is happiness then that individual would not have use for a Dhamma expounded by a Buddha for the purpose of elimination of suffering. People only care about doctors when they get sick. If they don't even know that they are sick in the first place why would they go to a doctor much less take the medicine they prescribe?
In my opinion one of the biggest barriers to entry aside from obvious ones (like having a debilitating mental disability) are the three distortions of perception (sanna-vipallasa). Which three? Perceiving that which is inconstant as constant, perceiving that which is unsatisfactory as satisfactory, and perceiving that which is not-self as self. There are so many extremely intelligent individuals in my life that would be able to appreciate the Dhamma if only they were willing to consider the possibility that life is unsatisfactory. An individual can abandon wrong views if they're humble enough to admit to themselves that they could be wrong, otherwise they are stuck indefinitely in the perceptual cages that they've built for themselves.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Yogacara Buddhism still practiced today?
Is Yogacara Buddhism practiced today or is it an entirely dead school of Buddhist thought. If it is no longer in existence did it have any influence in Buddhist schools that are around today? For instance do any schools or traditions have a notion of storehouse consciousness or have a strain of mind only or even idealist type philosophy in their teachings?

Yogacara as a distinct institutional school of Buddhism is almost totally extinct. There are two temples of the Hosso sect (which is the only remaining sect of Buddhism that calls itself Yogacara) of Buddhism in Japan ( Kōfuku-ji and Yakushi-ji) but that's really about it.
However, Yogacara as a distinct theoretical school has been preserved both in East Asia and also in Tibet. Within China, many Yogacara texts translated by Xuanzang are still read, and are incorporated into Chinese Zen.
Within Tibet, Yogacara has been preserved as part of the teachings on the different Tenet systems. Usually Yogacara is classified as being just below Madhyamaka in terms of the profundity of the view, so relatively few people accept all of its doctrines as the highest teaching, but it was very influential in a lot of meditational teachings in Mahamudra, some of the general terminology, and many in the Nyingma school combine Yogacara and Madhyamaka, using Madhyamaka as the perfect model for describing ultimate truth (i.e. emptiness) and using Yogacara as a model for describing conventional truth as all things appearing from the storehouse consciousness as a result of karma.
Also, in Tibet there is a tradition of Madhyamaka called Shentong which takes the teachings of Buddha nature as definitive, and a large amount of their vocabulary is derived from Yogacara. Some have criticised Shentong for bending certain Yogacara doctrines to make them fit, but it is a very popular interpretation within the Kagyu and Nyingma schools.
In brief, there aren't any Buddhist sects around nowadays that explicitly say "We are the Yogacara school" but the Yogacara teachings are still very much alive as a set of doctrines passed down.

Zen does.  In fact, it's hugely important.  Hakuin's Precious Mirror Cave (the title alone of which refers to alaya) mentions it at length; it also comes up in his verses of the Ten Kings.  I wouldn't view Yogacara as a school like Shingon or Nichren is a school/tradition.  Yogacara is more of a permeating idea.

Thich Nhat Hanh uses concepts and teachings from the yogacara school and has written about it. The Book is called "Understanding Our Mind." There is also "Living Yogacara" by Shun'ei Tagawa from the Hosso School in Japan which is very insightful as well.

See Traleg Rinpoche:

"The influence of Yogacara on Mahamudra" (KTD Publications)
"Mind at Ease: Self-liberation through Mahamudra Meditation" (Shambhala Publications)

The former is for in-depth scholarly treatment, the latter book has less in-depth info for contextualization of the view in Mahamudra as influenced by Yogacara.

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


text:
Notions of self in religions that blend Buddhism and Hinduism
I read in Peter Harvey's book an Introduction to Buddhism that there was a syncretistic religion in Bali that was a mixture of Buddhism and Hinduism. He didn't give many details as it was a very minor point. Has anyone got any details about this religion. I'm particular interested on how it deals with the notion of the self. My rudimentary understanding of Hinduism is that there is most definitely a self (atman??) whereas in Buddhism a central tenant is that there is no fixed self (anatman). The two religions seem to conflict on this point so I'm interested how this is reconciled.
As a note I think there is also this kind of religion in Cambodia but I could be wrong in that.

According to this source (from this book):

All Southeast Asians had practiced a mixture of Hinduism, Buddhism and
  native religions since the beginning of the modern era.

This mixture of Hinduism, Buddhism and native religions is likely to be cultural and superficially philosophical, similar to the mixture of Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism (three teachings) among the Chinese.
From a philosophical perspective, Buddhism and Hinduism appear to be superficially compatible or harmonious except in the area of anatta. Those who do not look closely, may think both religions have many common philosophical elements e.g. rebirth, dharma, karma, monasticism, meditation, enlightenment etc.
Advaita developed in Hinduism after contact with Buddhism, and Mahayana developed in Buddhism after contact with Hinduism. Tibetan Buddhism absorbed deities, yoga, tantra, mandalas and other similar elements from Hinduism.
Of course, if you study deeper into the details, you will find that rebirth, dharma and karma all do not have the exact same meaning between the two religions. Anatta is a major difference, that is said to have been pioneered by the Buddha in his era. And in terms of meditation, both religions have Samatha, but Buddhism claims that only Buddha had invented Vipassana. Meanwhile, Hinduism has more esoteric techniques like Hatha Yoga and Pranayama.
In other words, there are many cultural and philosophical similarities between the two religions, at least at the surface, that it is not impossible for certain South East Asians to appear to practise a mixture of the two religions.
If you are looking for a way to reconcile Atma and Anatta, take a look at this question. From the definitions there, it is possible to see Brahman and Atman (from an Advaita perspective), as being similar to Nirvana.

Please do not vote on this answer since it doesn't directly address the question about the religion in Bali, but does go to a nearby place. I misread the question and wrote out this answer, and don't want to throw it away, in case it maybe of use to someone. Happy to delete it if anyone objects to it staying here.
--
I've personally found the idea of samvritti bodhicitta to be indistinguishable from the Atman. However I am no expert. FWIW, the exact position of the five skandhas / heaps as defining the self is hotly debated within Buddhism, there is no single position on this matter that satisfies all schools, past and present, as far as I know.
I find there's a lot of Hindu opinion that Buddhism is really not a different religion, so much as a clearly refactored expression of Hindu ideas.

Famous Indian Hindu scholars like the ex-President of India the late Radhakrishnan state ‘The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up, and died a Hindu. He was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo-Aryan civilization.’ (2500 Years of Buddhism, 1971, Government of India, foreword, p.ix). Swami Vivekananda said that the Buddha was a great Vedantist for Buddhism was really only an offshoot of Vedanta (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, volume 7, p. 59 and Inspired Talks, volume 3, p. 527). Likewise, Nepalese scholars like Mr. Chudanath Bhattarai, Swami Prapannacharya and scores other Nepalese and Indian scholars, too numerous to be mentioned here, have written that Buddhism is a reaction, a reformation of Hinduism. The Buddha tried to reform some of the malpractice within Hinduism and he never wanted to create a new religion. In short, according to these scholars, Buddhism is correct Hinduism without any malpractice and evils and what is called Hinduism is the malpractice and distorted form of the Vedas.

Source: http://www.byomakusuma.org/teachings/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisAVisHinduVedanta.aspx
p.s. above source goes on to refute this position - but it occurs to me this is treading in muddy water territory since it's the kind of debate no one is truly equipped to answer. Anyone unenlightened would be arguing from a position of bias, and be worried about the implications of consequent gain or loss of power. An enlightened one would probably find the whole debate silly. I find it hard to side with either the Buddhists or the Hindus on this.

It is also said by Hindus that Shankaracharya, a leading Hindu saint of the 8th century defeated the leading Buddhist scholars of his day {source 1}, {source 2} in debate and converted them to Hinduism by showing them that their position on self wasn't so unique.
Also see, Wikipedia article on Shankara -  this debate incident is often not mentioned on Wikipedia because of its obvious capacity to incite emotions.

Thirdly, Hindu belief is that the various Buddhas are an avatar of Bhagavan Mahavishnu.

My off the cuff comment on all this:
There is no heresy or apostasy in Hinduism, it is the most accommodating of any religion I've known.
Unlike several religions including Islam and Christianity, there was never any effort at the harmonization of Hinduism into one standard religious idea; because the very idea of Hinduism as a distinct religion is a recent Westerner's view of things.
According to the modern Indian constitution (since 1950) all believers in Indian religions such as Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are clubbed together as Hindus. So that's what it says on the Indian passport unless one is a believer in an imported religion such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam.
Hinduism in the way that appeals to me at least has a breathtakingly grand view of religion as its core definition, according to which all beings share the same spiritual essence since they share the same physical essence. There isn't a special Christian blood group or a Christian planet earth and a Hindu planet earth, so how can there be different truths of the world?
If someone has an idea of God, and godliness is found in all, then aren't all ideas of God manifestations of God?
Note however, the Buddha doesn't go anywhere near such philosophy. He simply wasn't interested, because it wasn't going to lead to the end of suffering. He wasn't interested in absolute ultimate truths that didn't liberate people from everyday suffering. (see Simsappa sutta)
However in this grand view, the essence of religion is that there is no religion. There is no beginning, no founder, no end. The cosmic truth is too vast to be divided along the lines of human thought. The only things that matter are ethical living and peace in the here and now.
"Hinduism is about correct action, not correct belief. Orthopraxy not Orthodoxy."
I like this definition, and it isn't very far at all from Buddhism. However as Buddhism traveled across other cultures, a bit of orthodoxy of the lands did slip in, unused as they were to the idea of orthopraxy.
As long as one believes like the original idea of Hinduism as the all religion, anyone can be a Hindu.
This is easier said than done - religious conflicts have festered in India for a very long time, with Siva temples being destroyed to make way for Vishnu temples, or the other way around; or Buddhist monasteries being razed to make way for Siva temples or the other way round; or temples being razed to make way for mosques and churches and so on, ad infinitum.
It is as if no one wants this memo that all religious identity is unreal, because it all arises from thought.

Perhaps you could ask the question in the way you misread it and then give this answer. In case you didn't know we can answer our own questions.-Metta-


text:
Are Buddhists happier than average?
Has anyone ever tried to measure happiness of Buddhist practitioners and compare it in a scientific or analytically way to other religious groups or the population as a whole? If there are studies what were the results and are the measurements reliable or meaningful in any way?
I appreciate that the notion of happiness is an incredibly slippy notion but people do crop up from time to time who talk about happiness as a (sort of) scientific study and try to compare different locations and so forth e.g. this study indicates that Panama is the happiest country on earth. I'm not claiming that this is a great or accurate study but it's just an example of this kind of thing. Also perhaps a better word might be well-being rather than happiness but I'm not sure that does much to tighten the definition.

If you go by the number of wars that Siam and Burma have had since the dawn of Buddhism, it would seem like religion had little effect on such things across large populations. Across individual practitioners it's probably different. Anyway, science hasn't even been able to establish if theists are happier than atheists.

I believe Buddhas are happier than average :-)

Bhutan is a Buddhist country famous for its Gross National Happiness metric. So far, poverty is a drag on that metric: Bhutan Happiness Index: Buddhist Country Fails On Its 'Gross National Happiness'
Other economists have thought about happiness and how Buddhism might figure in to it, ref. Happiness and economics: a
Buddhist perspective (too much material to summarize quickly).

This article describes a study from 2001, involving monks with EEGs and functional MRIs.
INDEPTH: MEDITATION
The Pursuit of Happiness
CBC News Online | April 23, 2004

His prize subjects – and collaborators – are the Dalai Lama's lamas, the monks.
"The monks, we believe, are the Olympic athletes of certain kinds of mental training," Davidson says. "These are individuals who have spent years in practice. To recruit individuals who have undergone more than 10,000 hours of training of their mind is not an easy task and there aren't that many of these individuals on the planet."

The latter part of the article describes meditation's also being useful to non-Buddhists.

On the point of happiness as a 'slippery notion', I think there's a very helpful distinction to make between hedonic and eudaemonic happiness. Roughly speaking (and this is just my take - I welcome refinements or corrections): through the first 2 noble truths, a Buddhist practitioner stops seeking ultimate refuge in hedonic happiness, turning away from the sorrow and disappointment that inevitably follow from putting all of one's eggs in this basket; and through the 3rd and 4th noble truths a practitioner begins to perfect his or her eudaemonic happiness.
As to how successful Buddhist practitioners are in this endeavor as a whole... honestly, it's a fascinating question but I have no idea how to answer it empirically on a large scale. For myself and the practitioners I've met, simply turning toward eudaemonic happiness has been a profound and lasting source of joy - a path good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good at the end.

That's the first use of "eudaemonic" on this site; and the only definition of that word which I find easily on the web is "happy-making". Can you recommend a specific definition of this word, or a text (apart from Buddhism-in-general) which describes this form of happiness?

Sorry Chris - usage in a Buddhist context may be pretty specific to Alan Wallace. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005) cites Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and describes it as the "greatest good," consisting of "exercise of the virtues, which itself instantiates all human goods." The intent is to say that a morally good life is essential to human well-being; and conversely well-being supports our goodness (so the concept does not promote asceticism or reject the worth of mundane well-being).

Also might help to clarify what I understand by hedonic in a Buddhist context. Essentially, it is stimulus-driven gratification- ultimately disappointing (because it drives avarice, which always ends badly because the desire is either thwarted, or temporarily met to some degree and then lost). By contrast, eudaemonia is a happiness that doesn't rely on confusing impermanence with permanence, dissatisfaction with satisfaction, or non-self with self.

You need to be careful with how you use statistics to demonstrate things because there can be a lot of confounding variables. Many Buddhist countries have political instability, poverty, various public health problems, and much of the population aren't full blown practitioners of the teachings, but are mostly nominal Buddhists who might occasionally participate in a festival or ceremonies, but don't know much about the teachings and how to practice them.
To draw scientific conclusions you would need to be able to compare groups of people who are similarly situated in things except for practicing Buddhists and everyone else, and that would be very hard.

Plus if Buddhism indeed offers happiness then unhappy people will be drawn to it and will bring down the average ;-) I think science isn't ready to take on some topics like happiness just yet.

Buddhism is not about happiness.  Its about letting go.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you elaborate on your answer. One-line answers cannot really be considered answers. The stack exchange format is a "best-answer" format. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users where you can find more information about how to write a good answer.


text:
Is stream entry in 20 or 30 years of practice realistic?
The founder of the Triratna Buddhist Community, Sangharaskshita, stated that he thinks stream entry is realistic after twenty or thirty years

In fact, it would be surprising if, after 20 or 30 years of life in
  the Order, you were not a Stream Entrant. It would seem to be very
  surprising, if you have done all the other things - maybe you have
  founded Centres and written books and given so many lectures and gone
  on so many retreats, that you were not a Stream Entrant: why not?

It's obviously a very bold statement. Does anyone else give that kind of timescale for stream entry or do any modern traditions give any kind of timescale at all. Or is Sangharaskshita a complete outlier with this kind of estimation.
Note: Tiratna is my Sangha which I think is right to acknowledge in the question. That said it doesn't stop me finding some of Sangharaskshita's statements bold or even controversial and I'm always interested on outside perspectives on his statements.

Well I sure hope it doesn't take 20-30 years as a monk...because I'm aiming for it, I'm a layperson, and I'm already 50... :-)

The Buddha's famous estimate is it takes between 7 days and 7 years for a serious practitioner to become an arhat. It's a bold statement too.

is this statement in the context of a lay practitioner that's a householder?

My impression from what I have read is the morality of Sangharaskshita was not complete thus it would have been impossible for Sangharaskshita to ever attain stream-entry.

Mahasi Saydaw was giving an estimate for average practitioner 1-2 months of intense practice (I can find the source at request, IIRC in Practical Insight Meditation). Some variants (Thai-Mahasi, Ajahn Tong) do "basic course" (which aims to go through all stages of insight to the first experience of cessation (magga-nana & phala-nana) -- though some contest that) in 2-3 weeks, but the practice can be somewhat severe.

I think one would find it nearly impossible not to gain stream entry if they've been observing their emotions and reality for two or more decades. I'm even inclined to take the Buddha's estimate of 7 days and nights to a maximum of 7 years to gain arhatship on face value.
I don't think it's that difficult, most people spend 15 years studying hard to become a surgeon. We live in times of prosperity where people can afford to take that kind of time to better themselves that would have been impossible 2600 years ago without making huge sacrifices.
Sure there are more distractions today, but if someone put in similar effort, arhatship should be possible. Modern society largely lacks appreciation for the goals of arhatship and that is the primary impediment.
Having said that, please see

AN 3.91: Accayika Sutta — Urgent {A i 239; Thai 3.93} [Thanissaro].
  Just as a farmer can't predict when the fruit will ripen, so we can't
  predict when Awakening will occur. So just keep your practice strong;
  the rest will take care of itself.

One maybe tempted to ask where are these numerous stream entrants or arhats if the western buddhist order practice leads to stream entry.
Speaking from the ultimate view, aspiring or even positing that there is a stream entrant or arhat after the event is Sakkāya diṭṭhi  or personality view. Since enlightenment is the loss of personality or realization of anatta, there can be no personage who is enlightened.
I like the the Zen terminology in this matter for its lack of confusion. There is only satori or kensho, but no person who is satoried.
I don't know why the Pali/Theravada terms are laden with the personality view, of a walking talking stream entrant / arhat as an individual.
I think it is an exercise in futility if one sets forth to find and interview an arhat. One might have better success sitting down and resolving to attain arhatship.

Dharma Talk by Ajahn Sumedho - Freedom can be Experienced but not Attained

It can be difficult to give an exact timescale since there are different factors involved in the practice, for each being.
Some beings might have done extensive and concentrated practice in past lives allowing them to reach stream entry quickly in this life or future lives.
Other beings might not have accumulated that kind of practice. All beings have different kamma.
It might be dangerous to put a timescale on the achievement of stream entry since it takes one out of the present moment and into the future. It can also build expectations to the practice which can hinder ones progress.
One might not solve all problems in this life or the next one but by practicing diligently one is altering ones habits towards goodness and these habits is what eventually leads us to enlightenment. If one does good things and practice diligently then the mind is inclined towards Nibbana. This means that when one is on the path it will eventually lead to liberation. Don't worry too much about when it's going to happen.

There are a number of Thera- and Therī-gāthā poems which feature men and women with many years experience and no realisation.
Anon (Thī 67-71) begins:

paṇṇavīsativassāni, yato pabbajitā ahaṃ.
nāccharāsaṅghātamattampi, cittassūpasamajjhagaṃ.
25 rainy season since I went forth and,
Peace of mind has eluded me, even for a finger snap.

Also Sāmā (Thī 39-41) and so on.

I didn't find that translated on accesstoinsight (and Google didn't find your translation), but there is a copy of an online translation here: (Thī 67-71) and (Thī 39-41)

so it then turned out they both achieved realization!

I kinda agree, 20 years should be enough if you are serious. The problem is, not many people are that serious, so it takes them longer.

That sounds very reasonable provided of course that the practitioner is keeping the 5 precepts, meditate a good amount each day, have studied enough to abandon wrong views, and are very consistent in their practice. I think in that case the biggest obstacle would be making sure that they are properly developing the quality of Vipassana in their meditation along side Samatha. If they can do that, then I think 20 or 30 years is quite realistic.

If you have enough belief in Dhamma and your meditation teacher, purified Sila(at least five precepts), relentless effort for insight meditation, you will surely get sustainable concentration to achieve stream-entry level wisdom in seven days . It was in the past, so is the same nowadays. It is the TRUTH.

Can you tell me how to achieve stream entry in seven days

The Pali scriptures report stream-entry occurs at the very moment that Right Understanding is perfected & applied (e.g. the stream entry of the monk Kondanna in SN 56.11 & the stream entry of the householder Upali in MN 56).
MN 10 states full enlightenment can happen in 7 days therefore stream-entry obviously sooner.

Should any person practice these four foundations of mindfulness in this manner for a week, then one of these two fruits may be expected
  by him: highest knowledge here and now, or if some remainder of
  clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning.
MN 10

According to Mahayana Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism stream entry occurs with the first Bhumi or the Path of Seeing and is thus the demarcation between ordinary beings and Arya beings. I think this is an exceedingly rare realization in modern day and probably you could count on two hands the number of humans who have achieved this who are currently alive. Of course, I'm just an ordinary being so I really have no idea. I could be completely surrounded by Arya beings and not even know it :)

To say after so and so years you will earn stream entry is utter nonsense. You can advance spiritually in a second the same way a single momentous decision can transform your life in a second. The truth is nobody knows squat about what stage you are at spiritually. In the time of the Buddha, deciples were achieving full enlightenment in a matter of weeks.

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


text:
Does Buddhism claim perfection?
Does it claim to perfectly describe the nature of this world and all of mankind without contradiction as other religions do?
I read this article: http://approachingaro.org/certainty .
The author says:

Buddhism is unique, as far as I know, in insisting that the kind of answers we want cannot be had, anywhere. Emptiness—inherent uncertainty—is at the heart of Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is sometimes described as “The Way of Disappointment.” If we follow it sincerely, Buddhism repeatedly crushes our hope that somehow it will satisfy our longing for answers; for ground we can build on; for reliable order.

I know this may just be an opinion. If this is true, it seems contradictory to me. It's in and of itself a claim of certainty that we, as human beings, can never attain certainty.

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

That's a ridiculous statement.  How could you follow something sincerely that wasn't built on solid ground?  If the dharma wasn't certain, pursuing it would be a complete waste of time.  While it might not answer larger, existential questions like "why are we here", it is a fairly reliable point of departure.
Uncertainty is, however, a very important part of practice.  In fact, doubt and frustration are one of the most salient features of the path.  Buddhism doesn't seek to give answers.  Instead it asks us to reevaluate our assumptions.  It's very aim is to disrupt the order we've conjured around ourselves.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Buddhism tries to perfectly describe the nature of the world.  The very act of describing it inevitably reduces it to ideas and descriptions.  What Buddhism does attempt to do is give us an opportunity to see the nature of the world perfectly.

Actually one of the biggest reasons I was attracted to the Dhamma in the first place is because I was shocked by how perfectly and succinctly it answered the question "why are we here".

You think?  I don't know.  I've always found the creation myths of Buddhism to be a little lacking.  They certainly aren't as exciting as those found in Hinduism.  ;-)

since the creation myths of Hinduism and pretty much every other religion were dependently originated, I would say that dependent origination is the mother of all creation myths. Except that it's not a myth.

I'm not so sure I'd say Western creation stories are dependently originated.  Ignorance doesn't necessarily factor into "let their be light" for instance.  There is a reading of the Adam and Eve story that says the apple was actually a symbol for ignorance, but that's kind of apocryphal.  Even the Buddha's own description (i.e. in the Aganna Sutta) doesn't quite use the 12 links - at least not explicitly.

All conditioned phenomena (literally everything in the world) are dependently originated. Even the twelve links description of dependent origination itself is dependently originated.

The author of that quote, David Chapman, is a very interesting man! An expert on artificial intelligence, a philosopher, and novelist, as well as a long time Buddhist. But the idea that we can never have complete knowledge is not specific to Buddhism. It is built into mathematics for example, as set out in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Then we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which limits our knowledge of the quantum states of sub-atomic particles.
I think what David is trying to get at here is that the answers to our big questions cannot be had on the same level as the question. Unawakened beings do not see experience clearly enough to ask good questions. So for example we might be asking "What will make me happy?" And we'll expect the answer to be something simple, and probably related to pleasurable sense experience (this belief is deeply ingrained even in people who profess to believe it is not true). But search as we may we cannot find the one thing that will make us happy. Some forms of Buddhism tell us that happiness is not attained through acquisition, but through relinquishing. The question "What will make me happy?" can never have a satisfactory answer because it's framed in a worldview that precludes ultimate happiness.
The idea of "groundlessness" is a strong feature of Tibetan Buddhist teaching. Another author who talks like this is Pema Chödrön. My take on this might be different to David's and Pema's. All that we know about anything comes through experience. When we say "things arise in dependence on conditions" we mean experiences arise in dependence on conditions. And experiences themselves, are neither existent, nor non-existent. When we have an experience nothing "new" comes into being and when an experience ceases, nothing existing ceases to exist. Experiences are empty of self or anything related to self, they are empty of self-existence (i.e. an existence for which the thing itself is a condition). Therefore in experience there is nothing which is stable or lasting. When we say "things are impermanent" we mean experience is impermanent. And because experience is impermanent it cannot offer permanent solutions -  not to unhappiness or suffering or any of our other problems. Experience simply cannot be relied on.
Some Buddhists do claim to "perfectly describe the nature of this world". But a close reading of early Buddhist texts and, for example, the Perfection of Wisdom texts, makes it clear that they are not concerned with the nature of the world oe reality, but with the nature of experience. The idea that Buddhism describes the nature of the world is an error that crept into Buddhism very early on, and there have been repeated reformations to re-establish the focus on experience.

FYI and on the subject of up-voting answers or not, I sometimes wish your answers would be slightly more careful to obviously address the OP's question: does Buddhism claim to be a perfect description "without contradiction"? If it is perfect then how is there inherent uncertainty? If the heart of Buddhism is "inherent uncertainty" then is that a paradox: is that statement itself a "claim of certainty", etc.? I don't disagree with what you wrote but I'd be surer that it's a useful answer to the OP, if you tied it a little more closely/explicitly to the OP's question.

If this is true, it seems contradictory to me.

I suspect it's based on Buddhism's claim that everything (or, more specifically than "everything", all "conditioned things" -- however that includes all the things which the mind perceives i.e. ideas) are imperfect: or not imperfect but, more specifically, "impermanent" and "disappointing".

It's in and of itself a claim of certainty that we, as human beings, can never attain certainty.

Well no, there is said to be a Way (depending on which Buddhist tradition, perhaps more than one way) towards liberation.
I guess the resolution to the apparent paradox is the object of certainty.
Perhaps the world is uncertain (e.g. if things and ideas are impermanent, and keep changing, then you find disappointment and not certainty in things and ideas).
But Buddhist doctrine says that: it literally says, that "things are impermanent and disappointing".
Apparently a sufficiently enlightened Buddhist will experience certainty about the doctrine, i.e.:

Skeptical doubt - Doubt about the Buddha, his teaching (Dharma), and his community (Sangha) is eradicated because the sotāpanna personally experiences the true nature of reality through insight, and this insight confirms the accuracy of the Buddha’s teaching. Seeing removes doubt, because the sight is a form of vision (dassana), that allows one to know (ñāṇa).

Another clue in the phrase you quoted is, "the kind of answers we want cannot be had" -- I understand that to mean that there are answers of which we can be certain ... but they're not the kind of answers which we 'want'. :-)


text:
What is Buddhism?
To be precise, can anyone provide a one page summary of Buddhism as a whole, suitable to distribute to someone who knows nothing about the religion?
(Yes, this is a "please do my homework for me" question - we're starting up a university Buddhist club, and need a handout to give out at the club fair).

Possible duplicate of How to explain what Buddhism is?

It's closely related, but not quite a duplicate.

Is the goal to teach as much as possible on this one page, while using language to encourage reading the entire thing, and then coming to the club if they wish to learn more, or is the goal simply to provide a teaser introduction, and try to get as many people to come to the club as possible - where you could explain more in greater detail. Christian religions often take the first approach, and sound pushy/preachy which turns some people off - while doing the second is difficult to do well and those who don't go (which will be most), don't learn anything.

Another related question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1487/what-teachings-do-all-schools-of-buddhism-share

Okay, okay... I'll do my own homework. Here's a one page summary of Buddhism (adapted from Wikipedia) directed towards newcomers to Buddhism. Please comment with suggestions, etc.

What is Buddhism?
Buddhism is a nontheistic religion or philosophy (Sanskrit: dharma; Pali: dhamma) that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one"). According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha lived and taught in the northeastern part of the Indian subcontinent around the 5th century BCE. He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings put an end to suffering through the elimination of ignorance and craving.
Two major branches of Buddhism are generally recognized by scholars:

Theravada Buddhism ("The Teaching of the Elders") is followed mainly in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. In Theravada Buddhism, the ultimate goal is the attainment of Nirvana (Pali: Nibbana), or freedom from suffering, achieved by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path (a.k.a. the Middle Way), thus escaping what is seen as a cycle of suffering and rebirth.
Mahayana Buddhism ("The Great Vehicle") is found throughout East Asia and includes the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism (a.k.a. Vajrayana - “Diamond Vehicle”), Shingon, and Tiantai (Tendai). Mahayana Buddhists aspire to Buddhahood via the bodhisattva path, a state wherein one remains in the cycle of suffering and rebirth to help other beings reach awakening.

The foundations of Buddhist tradition and practice are the Three Jewels:

The Buddha – One who attains enlightenment by oneself, then teaches others to become enlightened;
The Dharma – the theory and practice taught by a self-enlightened Buddha; and
The Sangha – the community who attained enlightenment following the teachings of Buddha.

Taking "refuge” in the triple gem has traditionally been recoginized as a declaration and commitment to being on the Buddhist path, and in general distinguishes a Buddhist from a non-Buddhist. Beyond this, Buddhist traditions generally incorporate some or all of the following practices:

Following ethical precepts – a set of general ethical rules to be followed as a support for spiritual practice: abstention from killing, stealing, cheating, lying, and drugs and alcohol.
Renouncing conventional living and becoming a monastic – an optional path for those wishing to dedicate their lives to Buddhist practice by donning robes and following the example of the Buddha.
The development of mindfulness and practice of meditation – the practice of mental development as a means of freeing oneself from mental defilement and being of benefit both to oneself and others.
Cultivation of higher wisdom and discernment – the ultimate goal of mental development, generally seen as necessary for true spiritual enlightenment.
Study of scriptures – generally distinguished from true wisdom but still held as important for purposes of learning to differentiate between right and wrong practice and development.
Devotional practices – non-theistic objects of devotion include the Buddha, past enlightened followers of the Buddha, Bodhisatvas, angels, gods, and living spiritual teachers.
Ceremonies – common physical and verbal rituals used to focus the mind include: mantra and scriptural recitation; lighting candles, flowers, and incense; bowing; circumambulating objects of reverence; etc.

https://static.sirimangalo.org/resources/WhatIsBuddhism.odt
https://static.sirimangalo.org/resources/WhatIsBuddhism.pdf
https://static.sirimangalo.org/resources/WhatIsBuddhism.png
(All files are dedicated to the public domain)

Instead of "please comment" it might be more convenient to post this as a new/separate/follow-on question (see e.g. 'posting a new question' and 'posting a self-answer').

Ref. section on devotional practices: Is it accurate to describe angels and gods as non-theistic objects of devotion?

What is Buddhism?

Buddhism is a path of practice and spiritual development leading to
  Insight into the true nature of reality. Buddhist practices like
  meditation are means of changing yourself in order to develop the
  qualities of awareness, kindness, and wisdom. The experience developed
  within the Buddhist tradition over thousands of years has created an
  incomparable resource for all those who wish to follow a path — a path
  which ultimately culminates in Enlightenment or Buddhahood. An
  enlightened being sees the nature of reality absolutely clearly, just
  as it is, and lives fully and naturally in accordance with that
  vision. This is the goal of the Buddhist spiritual life, representing
  the end of suffering for anyone who attains it.
Because Buddhism does not include the idea of worshipping a creator
  god, some people do not see it as a religion in the normal, Western
  sense. The basic tenets of Buddhist teaching are straightforward and
  practical: nothing is fixed or permanent; actions have consequences;
  change is possible. So Buddhism addresses itself to all people
  irrespective of race, nationality, caste, sexuality, or gender. It
  teaches practical methods which enable people to realise and use its
  teachings in order to transform their experience, to be fully
  responsible for their lives.
There are around 350 million Buddhists and a growing number of them
  are Westerners. They follow many different forms of Buddhism, but all
  traditions are characterised by non-violence, lack of dogma, tolerance
  of differences, and, usually, by the practice of meditation.

Great first post. Welcome.

My last year's entry for Justin Whitaker's "Buddhism in 200 words" challenge, based on the Associated Press' Style Book entry for Buddhism:
--
Buddha, Buddhism. A major religion founded in India about 450 B.C. by Siddharth Shakya, popularly known as the Buddha ("awakened").
Buddhists believe that human experiences originate in the mind, training which through cultivation of ethics, meditation, and wisdom leads to nirvana (the release from suffering) or enlightenment -- the insight into the true nature of things. Until the goal is attained, believers experience the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara).
Major traditions within Buddhism include:

Theravada: Seeing themselves as orthodox adherents to the original teaching, followers emphasize monastic discipline for individual attainment of nirvana, and lay ethics for a better rebirth. Dominant in Cambodia, Laos, Burma (Myanmar), Thailand, and Sri Lanka.
Mahayana: Seeing themselves as upholders of the true spirit of the teaching, followers emphasize altruism and compassion, exemplified in the bodhisattva’s vow to bring all beings, prior to oneself, to enlightenment. Mahayana is found mostly in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China. The major branches are Pure Land, devoted to attaining rebirth in a blissful land, Zen, which focuses on intuitive insight and meditation, and Vajrayana, a synthesis of Buddhist and yogic elements that promises special, often secret, techniques to cleanse one's mind from obscurations and achieve enlightenment.

This is a tough question and just about any attempt to define Buddhism can run into problems.
On the most general level, Buddhism is any religion/philosophy that traces its lineage back to Gotama Siddartha (known as the Buddha after his enlightenment).  Now this definition -- while being general -- may also be too general.
A more specific definition is that Buddhism is a belief system and way of life rooted in The 4 Noble Truths.

While I don't agree with the first paragraph, the last is very interesting. I'd never thought of it that way.

Here's a little different approach, bhante. Young university students might get more attracted to a rebellious and in your face style of presentation. :)
What is Buddhism?
Buddhism is the doctrine of the Buddha. It is commonly referred to as the Dhamma.
The Dhamma is like the great ocean. The great ocean tastes the same(salty) wherever you dip your mouth in it. Similarly, the Dhamma tastes the same regardless of which part you start to learn it from. What is that taste? It is the taste of liberation(vimutti).
What does Buddhism offer you?
You have been searching for satisfaction since the day you were born, have you not? If you are already satisfied, you wouldn't be coming to this university to study. You wouldn't be spending sleepless nights, just to pass exams.You wouldn't be looking for various methods to make yourself happy on a daily basis. You spend most of your time on any given day in search of satisfaction, yet you can't see an end in sight. You still have to keep doing things to keep yourself happy. It doesn't stop even if you get a doctorate. Even the richest man in the world has to keep doing things everyday to make himself happy. Ever stopped to think why that is, instead of trying the same methods over and over again? Ever wondered if there is a better way? Well, there is! Thanks to a young prince named Siddhartha who lived in India over 2500 years ago. He thought differently from the rest. He saw the dissatisfaction in the world and the things people do to mitigate it. He realised that whatever they do doesn't seem to give a permanent solution to suffering. He refused to submit to this like the rest of the world. He didn't want to keep doing the same things people have been doing which have failed since time immemorial. He left his palace in search of a happiness that does not fade.
There are 2 way to search for happiness in life.
The ignoble search and the noble search.
What is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth.
There is the case where a person, being subject himself to aging, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to aging.
There is the case where a person, being subject himself to illness, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness.
There is the case where a person, being subject himself to death, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to death etc.
And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Himself being subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. This is the noble search. It is the search that led prince Siddhartha to become the Buddha
What is the advantage of learning Buddhism over other religions or over science for that matter?
You don't have to wait till you die to realise the final goal. There's a clear path defined which you can practice and reach the destination while you are still alive. So there's no risk involved. There's no waiting in hope. The Buddha achieved this at the age of 35. What he realised is through direct knowledge. It's not a hypothesis created in the mind to explain certain behavior that might change in the future. It neither requires faith or verification by others. Once you achieve the goal, you will be satisfied and the search ends for good. For thousands of years, many who have followed the same path have achieved the same satisfaction that never fades. You can too!

I think it's good of your answer to say explicitly, "What does Buddhism offer you?", if it's trying to recruit people to the club. yuttadhammo's answer didn't (it was more neutral/impersonal -- possibly because it's adapted from Wikipedia). Andrei's answer did (in 200 words) when it said "leads to nirvana (the release from suffering) or enlightenment -- the insight into the true nature of things".

May I suggest that in the typical demographics of the west, being primarily non Buddhist; that belief in rebirth (or the absence of death) is  far less common. So with people who don't necessarily think about/understand/believe/accept rebirth anyway; describing the disadvantages of rebirth is not the strongest point. (I actually thought rebirth sounded like a great thing at one time! ;-))

@Robin111 there's no reference to rebirth. Which section you are referring to?

"And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding." This mostly. :)

Ah! There the birth means the arising or coming into existence. It can be a human or a material thing too. In anycase, birth that led to the current life is the reason for all the suffering we experience. ;)

As of my understanding,
Once Load Buddha said these lines to a person(Bahiya Daruciriya) who really wants to know what Buddhism is really quickly. Please forgive me for my worst English translations.
Where there is seeing, there is only the seeing
Where there is listen,heard there is only heard
Where there is a taste there is only taste
Where there is a feel, there is only the feeling
Where there is a thought, there is only thought.
If so, you not here. You are not anywhere else. And you are not in between.
I can say this more clearly in Sinhalese, so a person with more linguistic ability sees this, he can translate this more clearly.
Edit Sinhala text as per the comment by 'Shrawaka'.
දැකීමෙහි දැකීමක්ම පමණි
ඇසීමෙහි ඇසීමක්ම පමණි
දැන‍ෙන්නෙහි දැනීමක්ම පමණි
සිතිමෙහි සිතුවිලි මාත්‍රයක්ම පමණි
එසේ නම් ඔබ එතැන නැත. ඔබ අන් තැනකද නැත
ඔබ ඒ අතරත් නැත.
This is Buddhism. This is all you need to do to attain Nirvana.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html says, "Thanks to the intervention and the guidance of his lofty benefactor, Bahiya Daruciriya was directed to the Blessed One, whose brief and cryptic discourse had such a powerful impact that Bahiya achieved arahantship right on the spot (Ud 1.10, pp.18-19). After his death, the Buddha declared Bahiya the foremost bhikkhu with respect to quickness of understanding."

I think your english translation is more accurate than sinhala where it should be as දක්නා ලද්දෙහි (රූපයෙහි) දක්නා ලද පමණක් වන්නේ ය. “දිට්‌ඨෙ දිට්‌ඨමත්‌තං භවිස්‌සති“- “දැකීමෙහි දැකීමක්ම පමණි (දුටු දෙයක් හෝ දුටු කෙනෙක් ලෙස නොගෙනීමෙනි) - In what is seen there must be only what is seen" as here.

Yes. Now only I noticed that. If it's a verb, then there should be a doer. Which is making unnecessary complications here.

to be a Buddhist you must believe the Buddha achieved supreme enlightenment and that Nirvana is a real thing that can be experienced directly by following the 8 fold path as the Buddha taught.

An Introduction
Once upon a time there lived a prince called Siddhartha. One day he went to royal garden. By the way he sees a dead body accompanying suffering relatives. Then he start to think deeply about suffering. why i don't feel suffer, why only they suffer, because if bondage then only suffering arise. then he see a "Bikku" who searchers the way to illuminate bondage that create life sufferings. On his return way a lady called "KisaGothami" says "Nibbutha Gata",  with that encouragement he decide to find Vimukthi or end of suffering.
So he search teachers who can show how to overcome life sufferings.
One of them teach him everything consist Four "MahaButha" (elements) so develop concentrate on it and realize only "Akasa" is. then only "Vingnana" as the reality.
Another teacher shows the person(Athma) is when only feels it. if there is not "Sagna" then no self.("Newer sangna na sagnayathanaya").
"Maha Bodhisattva" realize they are not the complete solutions for the life problem and decide to find his own path. He follows "Aththakilamathanu yoga" that popular Yoga technique. After about six years he give up it and follows his own experience at his very young age - Anapanasathi. After enlightenment at first sermon teach four Noble Truths.
In Short:

The point here is that phenomenal reality is projection, an
  interpretation that depends on the point of view. Because experienced
  reality is projection, we can control it by controlling our point of
  view.

In very brief, Buddhism is a teaching to create value and absolute happiness in daily life. It is a teaching available to all. It is a philosophy which has profound reason and is applicable to all facets of life. It is based on the unchanging and all-encompassing law of causality, and teaches how life works. The only purpose of Buddhism is value creation and true happiness in daily life.


text:
Will Karma 'balance out' in most cases by the end of a lifetime?
So, let me start with the disclaimer that I am not a Buddhist and I am just asking this to further my understanding.
Either way, the thing I was wondering about, does Buddhism hold that in most cases karma will balance out within a single lifetime? Or will it only balance out 'in due time' which could be after many many rebirths?
Reason I am asking is because for Buddhists I 'know' (no actual friends) they always seem to live in the expectation that it will soon balance. To me that entitled behaviour is always incredibly off putting, but that's not the point, I am just purely curious whether the expectation (not the entitlement) actually makes sense at least from a theoretical Buddhist believe point of view.

could you please clarify exactly what you mean by balancing out?

@SamurdhaJayasinghe I am not sure what the official terminology is, but if somebody does something bad to those buddhists I know they expect that that person will get their 'pay back' soon enough and that if they do something good that they will be rewarded for it 'soon enough'. I understood that this was the basis of the idea of karma~

Clearly there are already different answers to this. In fact the different answers are indicative of the problems of Buddhist karma. I've published two articles which touch on this question:

Did King Ajātasattu Confess to the Buddha, and did the Buddha Forgive Him? Journal of Buddhist Ethics. Vol. 15, 2008.
Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014.

The main point of the 2014 article is that the theory of karma changes over time. I trace one particular major change from the earliest records into the later records (and add some more speculative thoughts on the origins of karma theory).
Early Buddhists believed that karma must ripen no matter what. There is no escape from the consequences of one's actions. On the whole one's actions ripen as rebirth (punabhava). A few of them might ripen in this life as vedanā or sensations, and a few in subsequent lives (as rebirth or sensations), but most of them go to conditioning the next life. At least one Pāḷi sutta, Karajakāyasuttaṃ (AN 10.219; v.299-301), claims that in causing rebirth all unripened karma comes to fruition and we start each life with a clean slate. Though typically early Buddhists allow for karma to come to fruition after many lifetimes.
The only light in this picture is that through religious practices one can make oneself less vulnerable to the ripening of karma in this life (whether it was caused in this or a previous life).
However this changes. We begin to see more possibilities in the Theravāda Abhidhamma which invents a new kind of karma - upapīḷakakamma "counteracting karma - which can counteract or suppress the ripening of karma. Buddhaghosa, the great 5th Century father of Theravāda orthodoxy, is clearly still in the "Karma must ripen" camp.
For Mahāyāna Buddhists there are a whole range of religious practices one can do, including confession and dhāraṇī chanting, that can mitigate the effects of karma ripening, or even eliminate karma completely. Many of these are listed in the Śikṣasamucaya, a sūtra compilation by Śantideva (ca 7th or 8th century)
The difference is epitomised in the story of King Ajātasattu (2008) as found in the Samaññaphala Sutta. Having killed his father Ajātasattu experiences some uneasiness and goes to see the Buddha. After telling the Buddha what he has done and promising to be good from then on, the king leaves. In the Pāḷi version of the story the Buddha turns to the monks and says "Well, he's done for". Having killed his father even meeting the Buddha is not enough to save him. And indeed the commentaries say he went to Hell when he died. In the later retellings of this same story (ca. 4th-6th centuries) in Sanskrit and Chinese however, the king is miraculously saved by his meeting with the Buddha. The whole attitude to karma and how and when it ripens has changed. Karma is no longer inevitable.
The early Tantras, particularly the Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha, take this to its apotheosis by introducing the 100 Syllable Vajrasattva Mantra (see also my Western Buddhist Review article on this mantra). This mantra, when chanted, is supposed to clear away any unripened karma, even of the most serious kind. Chanting it purifies all karma. Chanting it 100,000 times is a common prerequisite to receiving a Tantric initiation. Although it is interesting to note that at least one Tibetan group seems to be teaching the old story of inescapable karma.
Clearly there is no single "Buddhist" view on this question. Karma undergoes many changes over time and a number of mutually exclusive karma theories survive in the present. That said, I have yet to find any documented Buddhist teaching which suggests that karma will "balance out" in a single lifetime. The whole point of karma is that it is the mechanism that drives rebirth. And while many modernist Buddhists are dismissive of karma and rebirth, history shows that it was almost always a priority for historical Buddhists - I have informally written about a number of doctrinal changes in which the supposedly fundamental theory of dependent arising is modified to make for a better karma theory.
We also see that modernist Buddhists are apt to delude themselves about traditional Buddhist teaching. Buddhist ideas often suffer from ad hoc changes to bring it into line with psychology or modern views on rights for example. Rather than reject concepts which conflict with our values, we tacitly (perhaps even unconsciously) alter them to fit and then claim that this is what the Buddha intended.

Fantastic answer!

Great answer... "I have informally written about a number of doctrinal changes in which the supposedly fundamental theory of dependent arising is modified to make for a better karma theory"...  Are any of these writings online? I would like to read them. Thanks!

It's not that simple. Kamma is possibly one of the least understood aspects of Buddhism as it's incredibly difficult to verify through direct experience. There are four types: kamma that is bright with bright results, kamma that is dark with dark results, kamma that is bright and dark with bright and dark results, kamma that is neither bright nor dark that essentially cancels out previous kamma. Kamma (action) can come to fruition (consequence) within this lifetime, in the next lifetime, or many lifetimes in the future. In some cases kamma will never come to fruition. Also dark kamma generated by an individual of higher virtue will have less severe consequences than the same kamma generated by an individual of lesser virtue, similar to how a crystal of salt put into a cup of water will make the water taste salty but the same crystal put into a river will not have any noticeable effect.
Also similar to how a seed will take root and grow only in fertile soil with adequate moisture and sunlight, different types of kamma will also only ripen under specific conditions (specific mind-states). For example, if someone is generating a lot of loving-kindness then it's easier for past bright kamma to come to fruition than it is for dark kamma. People who start practicing loving-kindness meditation intensely might notice an increase in positive events in their lives because they have prepared the soil, so to speak, for bright kamma accumulated over past lifetimes to ripen. This is an example of the non-deterministic aspect of kamma.
Side note: if the person you know is wishing/expecting payback (assuming in a negative sense) on someone else then this person is actually accumulating dark kamma him/herself simply by making that wish.

It is extremely unlikely that one's karma would balance out by the end of one's life. Quite often, a particular action will not ripen and produce a karmic result for many lifetimes, so even if all of the karma which one has done in THIS life is spent, there is likely some karma from previous lifetimes.
But even that is unlikely, as it is much more likely that one's karma from previous lives will ripen in this life before the karma from this life starts to ripen.
tl;dr version is that karma is something that works itself out over many lifetimes, so it is extremely unlikely that one would have most of their karma spent by the time of their death.

Ah, damn, I wanted to upvote, but then realized that I am in no position to judge the answer so I will just have to wait to see others judge it, but I did want to say thanks for taking the time, so hereby: Thaaanks :)) (and of course I will give it an accept if it turns out to be the most agreed on answer :) )

Is "tl;dr " a typo or an abbreviation? Either way I don't understand.

@Jayarava tl;dr; (Too Long; Didn't Read) a common abbreviation used on the internet to provide a summary of a very long text (not too long in this case) :)

Short answer : No, good and bad karma do not cancel each other out like positive and negative numbers.
There are four principles of karma in the Tibetan tradition they are called
LE NGE-PA
LE PEL CHE-WA
LE MA-JE-PA DANG MI-TRE-PA
LE JE-PA CHU MI-SA-WA
which translates to english as
Karma definite
Karma increase bigger
Karma not did and not make contact / touch
Karma  just not disappear
To simplify it is easy to think of them as seeds for a second.
Karma planted will grow. (Good results in good, bad in bad)
It grows. (Karma planted grows bigger than the initial seed)
You cannot harvest what you did not plant.
Karma never just disappears.
There are ways to "purify" your karma in the Tibetan tradition, but this does not make the seeds disappear, merely ripen quickly. If you are interested in that you can read my answer to another question here.
There is also an 10 session audio course on how karma works (It goes into much greater detail) located here. (Course 5)

theoretically yes, if you become a stream enterer or enlightened, but for most no. You pay your karmic debts over multiple lifetimes


text:
Is a starving person justified in stealing food?
In Germany it is not illegal to steal food when  you're about to starve. Would someone who does this still would have to face negative consequences because of  this stealing in the future?

In general, in Buddhism taking without asking would still be considered unskilful. The relevant precept is adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi "I undertake the training principle of not taking the not given". There is nothing to stop someone asking for food if they are hungry. Indeed by stealing one also deprives the other of the opportunity of gaining the merit of generosity.

There are NO valid justifications of any wrong deed.
MN 97: Dhanañjani Sutta — To Dhanañjani gives good and clear answers.
It's a valid justification to bear hardships, leave, starve and go beyond for holding on precepts.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Was the kamikaze against the Mongol empire considered a supernatural event in Buddhism?
The English language edition's article on the original kamikaze (divine wind) against the Mongol empire (not WWII) refers to Buddhism, though it also mentions Japanese "gods".

...1274 and again in 1281.  Due to growth of Zen Buddhism among Samurai at the time, these were the first events where the typhoons were described as "divine wind" as much by their timing as by their force.

This surprised me a little - I thought the "kami" in kamikaze referred to beings from Japan's native shinto belief system, which many Japanese have alongside Buddhism.
Was kamikaze typically regarded as a supernatural event in Buddhism?

Hi Andrew, welcome to the site. I'm not sure what the connection with "non-violence" is (and asking whether Samurai were Buddhist and violent might presumably be another, different question). If I were posing a question around the quoted statement, I might phrase it as questioning why/whether "Zen Buddhists" of that time and place would call a phenomenon "divine" or attribute it to "a god's intervention". So I edited the question slightly, to remove references to non-violence and to add the [tag:god] tag instead.

I don't think the line between Shinto and Buddhism has been very clear in Japan, just as the line between Hinduism and Buddhism was never very clear in India.
For that matter, whenever any religion travels it is forced to either defeat or integrate its newest cultures. Religion can't take prisoners of war, it has to conquer by assimilation or destruction.
I don't have personal knowledge of this branch of Buddhism, but I've made use of a search engine to find these sources.
Syncretism of Shinto & Buddhism in Japan
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/09/04/reference/japans-shinto-buddhist-religious-medley/

Most in Japan may know Buddhism has something to do with controlling
  lust and anger, and is associated with funerals and graves, while
  Shinto involves venerating nature, and weddings. But many people have
  trouble making theological distinctions between the two or even
  telling a Buddhist temple from a Shinto shrine.
The internationalists in the Japanese court welcomed Buddhism. Others
  saw it as a threat to the status quo, with Buddha nothing more than a
  “jajin,” or devil.
Prince Shotoku (574-622) promoted Buddhism and it took hold. Still,
  Japan would never see a full conversion away from its indigenous
  religion, as occurred to a much greater extent across pagan Europe
  with the introduction of Christianity. Rather, Japanese absorbed
  Buddhism gradually, mixing it with local folk religions.
This process played out in the divine realm, too, with certain Shinto
  gods coming to be seen as protectors of the Buddha. One was Hachiman,
  the Shinto god of war, who legend has it aided the construction of the
  Great Buddha statue in Nara during the Nara Period (710-784). This act
  of kindness won him the name “Great Bodhisattva (Buddhist saint)
  Hachiman” in 781.
Reflecting this meeting of religions, Hachiman was sometimes depicted
  in sculptures as a very unwarlike Buddhist monk.
But what does the eighth century have to do with mixups over temples
  and shrines now?
The syncretism, or weaving together of religions, would continue over
  centuries as Japan went about absorbing Pure Land, Zen and other
  Buddhist sects from China. Over time, cross-pollination between
  Buddhism and Shinto would deepen in a process known as “shin-butsu
  shugo” (Shinto-Buddhism coalescence), or less flatteringly as the
  “shin-butsu konko” (Shinto-Buddhism jumble).
Much of the convergence amounted to Buddhism trying to make a mark on
  the host culture. Buddhist monks felt certain Shinto divinities needed
  salvation. So they chanted sutras in front of shrines that were the
  gods’ sacred homes.
Meanwhile, temples started sprouting up next to Shinto shrines, to be
  called “jingu-ji,” meaning “shrine-temples.” By the 16th century, such
  mixing and matching had become official policy.

Kamis vs Butsus
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/shinto-deities.html

In modern Japan, both Shintō and Buddhist practice among the common
  folk has taken on the air of “this-worldly benefits” (concrete rewards
  now; Genze Riyaku). To many Japanese, Shintō and Buddhist
  faith is primarily involved with petitions and prayers for business
  profits, the safety of the household, success on school entrance
  exams, painless child birth, and other concrete rewards now, in this
  life. Shintō deities are called KAMI, SHIN , JIN , SAMA , TENJIN
  , GONGEN , and MYŌJIN  to distinguish them from their Buddhist
  counterparts. The latter are known as BUTSU  and NYORAI (all
  mean Buddha or Tathagata), BOSATSU (meaning Bodhisattva), TEN
  (meaning Deva), MYŌ-Ō  (meaning Luminescent Kings).

You haven't really answered the question. "Was kamikaze typically regarded as a supernatural event in Buddhism?"

No, I was merely offering an explanation for his puzzlement about Shinto vs Buddhism. I'd be happy for this answer to be superseded by a more comprehensive one. Let not perfect become the enemy of good, etc.