text:
Constant mindfulness hard to achieve
I find very hard to be always mindful of all activities (four frames of reference).
At the beginning of practice, my persistence are aroused and gradually it becomes indifference/lax. Basically I am starting feel stress trying to be mindful..?
Since it is necessary to have other factors like joy, calm (7 factors of enlightenment) to achieve wisdom, I assume I am doing something wrong.
What I have learnt from sutta is 'sati' dhamma is cause for arising of other good dhamma.
So what are the conditions to have this 'sati' ? .

When you start of you need some level of concentration to have awareness. The reason for this is we are constantly getting input from all 6 sense doors and we react to them. So the starting point would be to focus on narrower area in terms of input and be persistent.
When it comes to awareness what you really have to be aware is the sensations caused when any input comes through sense doors, and to be equanimous towards it. This is mutually reinforcing. Once you have concentration and equanimity (you need strong morality as a base) your awareness improves. Also one of the main constituents or our frame is sensations so it is always there. All Karma gives result as means to create some sensation (e.g. you break your leg then this is pain. When you initially plant the seed of Karma also you will feel similar pain but at a much lower intensity than when you reap the results. Many of us are not sensitive enough to see this.)
You will naturally get stressed if you practice the wrong type of awareness. E.g. and acrobat will have a strong sense of awareness and some level of stress to maintain this awareness. More longer you do your gig more stressful you become. The right type of awareness does not give stress. This is being alway sensing the sensation in your body and to be equanimous towards it.
E.g. when you are walking, you use your faculties look at the process of you walking. Through your faculties you can sense pressure on your feet and certain change happening with regard to moving giving certain sensation. Also the impulse in you mind to more of what sensations this triggers.
The process that creates stress is when you react to sensations with clinging. If you are not equanimous, you will cling causing stress. Also if you miss sensations you will miss seeing this process where you react and cling to sensations.
Once you start this way a point will come you can sense sensation in your whole body and see how this reacts to different inputs from your sense doors. Though this would will see that your body is also changing. You see the sensation of liquid nature, solid nature, gaseous nature, temperature in your body. All made of tiny Kalapas arising and passing away.

love you guys for the question and answer

My personal, limited, understanding:
Right mindfulness is rooted in always feeling the body. This means continuous awareness of sensations in 1) lower abdomen and hips, 2) chest and diaphragm, 3) neck and shoulders, 4) feet.
Mindfulness of body is expressed in your posture and in how you move. Your posture and movements should be royal. This means, relaxed, smooth, precise, elegant, and doubtless. You must always be very comfortable, but not sloppy.
The next component of right mindfulness is simplicity. This means not worrying about too many things. Instead of running around the court chasing the balls, you let reality serve you the ball, and you handle them, while trusting your fundamental sanity.
To add some sophistication to the above, right mindfulness involves changing your frame of reference, from seeing this world as container of people competing for success, to seeing this world as energy, mind, karma. Energy fluctuates and animates, mind receives sensory stimuli, these interact with previous impressions, triggering recognition of objects, these trigger impulses, impulses are dukkha, acting on impulses we seed the seeds that keep the wheel rolling in the same track. So with right mindfulness we have to learn to measure everything with the yardstick of Dharma. We leave the regular world, and immigrate the world of Dharma, where everything looks different and people speak a different language.
As the above is established, the main part of right mindfulness is stalking your ego, stalking your attachments. This involves a very critical, very sincere attitude towards oneself, almost harsh. You watch your mind every second of every minute of every hour for any signs of idolizing anything, making anything all-important: money, success, relationship, respect, spiritual achievement, stability, comfort, fairness, honesty, intelligence, Buddhism -- anything at all. The other side of this is watching your ego for attempts to defend/promote itself. First, you can identify these situations by the negative emotions that arise, and by letting go of attachments watch the emotions subside. Then you will be able to detect the attachments earlier, before emotions arise.
Doing the above, over time you should develop mindfulness of energy in and around you. Is situation balanced or is it skewed. Whenever there is an energy problem, you know you will get in trouble sooner or later. So you learn to maintain your cloud in good shape.
Finally, right mindfulness involves developing the feeling of trust towards your judgement. This trust is based on the fundamental mistrust of your ego, with its tricks and its ability to turn the best Dharma into food for itself. It also is based on simplicity. It is also based on mindfulness of body. It is also based on the dharmic frame of reference. It is also based on awareness of energy. Once all of the above comes together, you know you can trust yourself, which means you can put things on autopilot. You let your fundamental sanity drive. Then right mindfulness becomes effortless, you can't loose it. This is when calm and joy come.


text:
Did the Buddha ever say something proven wrong later?
Is there any teaching of the Buddha one can say has been proven wrong, any statement about the universe, the world, the future or the past maybe?

The Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, enjoys dialogue with Western scientists as reported in the book "Gentle Bridges", Shambhala Publications, 1992. I understand that he has stated "If science should discover an error in Buddhism, then Buddhism must change." Taking this as the answer to the question affirms both the perfection of the Buddha's enlightenment and the human responsibility to record and disseminate it correctly.

The Buddha's Dhamma is Universal Law of Nature, open for scientific examination, timeless, when practiced lets you to understand the ultimate realities and is something that can be realised at the experiential level.
There can be issues with the different interpretations after 2500+ years and some may be miss specified in transmission, and some sayings may be even later compositions incorrectly attributed to the Buddha.
But having said this there cannot be anything which the Buddha said which can be wrong since what he taught is (according to him) what he experienced directly which can also be experienced by any body by practicing the well laid out path.
Ultimately what you should believe is what you experience for your self within the framework of the body. This is what you should take as the teaching of the Buddha, as he has emphasised.
The 6 qualities of the Dhamma in detail:

Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed" or "self-announced"). The Buddha's teaching is not a speculative philosophy but an exposition of the Universal Law of Nature based on a causal analysis of natural phenomena. It is taught, therefore, as a science[11] rather than a sectarian belief system. Full comprehension (enlightenment) of the teaching may take varying lengths of time but Buddhists traditionally say that the course of study is 'excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end' (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom).
Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dharma is open to scientific and other types of scrutiny and is not based on faith.[12] It can be tested by personal practice and one who follows it will see the result for oneself by means of one's own experience. Sandiṭṭhiko comes from the word sandiṭṭhika which means visible in this world and is derived from the word sandiṭṭhi-. Since Dhamma is visible, it can be "seen": known and be experienced within one's life.
Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "timeless, immediate"). The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now. There is no need to wait for the future or a next existence. The dhamma does not change over time and it is not relative to time.
  Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" — from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma invites all beings to put it to the test and come see for themselves.
Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). Followed as a part of one's life the dhamma leads one to liberation. In the "Vishuddhimagga" this is also referred to as "Upanayanam." Opanayiko means "to be brought inside oneself". This can be understood with an analogy as follows. If one says a ripe mango tastes delicious, and if several people listen and come to believe it, they would imagine the taste of the mango according to their previous experiences of other delicious mangoes. Yet, they will still not really know exactly how this mango tastes. Also, if there is a person who has never tasted a ripe mango before, that person has no way of knowing exactly for himself how it tastes. So, the only way to know the exact taste is to experience it. In the same way, dhamma is said to be Opanayiko which means that a person needs to experience it within to see exactly what it is.
Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be meant to perceive directly"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Buddha) who have matured in supreme wisdom. No one can "enlighten" another person. Each intelligent person has to attain and experience for themselves. As an analogy, no one can simply make another know how to swim. Each person individually has to learn how to swim. In the same way, dhamma cannot be transferred or bestowed upon someone. Each one has to know for themselves.

Sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)

The problem I have faced with your question is the only teaching of the Buddha of which I am totally convinced is genuine is the flower sermon.
There was nothing said. Obviously Shakyamuni Buddha gave sermons, but what was in those sermons will be debated by theologians.
To me what has been said that we can verify with our practice is the basis of human suffering and the way out of it. The principles we can verify with our practice.
If we did find something he reportedly said that was wrong or false, how would we know he really said it? This is the downfall of trying to do a meticulous study of an oral tradition over 2000 years old. It does not invalidate Buddhism's usefulness but does preclude in my opinion any proving of points of details about what the Buddha said.

Good point on the oral transmission issue, but it works both ways. Anyway lets wait for more answers :)

Flower Sermon says a lot.

The Note at the bottom of this Sutta says,

This translation follows the Thai and Burmese versions of this passage. The Sri Lankan version replaces Ven. Nanda in this list with Ven. Ānanda; the PTS version replaces him with Ven. Devadatta and Ven. Ānanda. These latter two readings would appear to be mistaken, as the Buddha in this sutta defines "brahman" as one whose fetters are ended — i.e., an arahant — whereas Ven. Ānanda became an arahant only after the Buddha's passing; Devadatta, after having caused a split in the Saṅgha toward the end of the Buddha's life, fell into hell.

So according to one version (i.e. the Pali), he praised Devadatta, and may therefore have been "proven wrong" by Devadatta's subsequent misbehaviours.

This is a famous dilemma, given that Devadatta has a reputation as an evil-doer (who tried to kill the Buddha, and cause a schism within the order): "Perhaps the Buddha shouldn't have admitted Devadatta to the Sangha."
The Questions of King Milinda include the following question and answer,

'What then, Nâgasena! Was the Buddha aware that Devadatta after being
  admitted to the Order would raise up a schism, and having done so
  would suffer torment in purgatory for a Kalpa?'
'Yes, the Tathâgata, knew that.'
'But, Nâgasena, if that be so, then the statement that the Buddha was
  kind and pitiful, that he sought after the good of others, that he was
  the remover of that which works harm, the provider of that which works
  well to all beings--that statement must be wrong. If it be not so--if
  he knew not that Devadatta after he had been admitted to the Order
  would stir up a schism--then he cannot have been omniscient. This
  other double-pointed dilemma is put to you. Unravel this tough skein,
  break up the argument of the adversaries. In future times it will be
  hard to find Bhikkhus like to you in wisdom. Herein then show your
  skill!'
'The Blessed One, O king, was both full of mercy and had all
  knowledge. It was when the Blessed One in his mercy and wisdom
  considered the life history of Devadatta that he perceived how, having
  heaped up Karma on Karma, he would pass for an endless series of
  Kalpas from torment to torment, and from perdition to perdition. And
  the Blessed One knew also that the infinite Karma of that man would,
  because he had entered the Order, become finite, and the sorrow caused
  by the previous Karma would also therefore become limited. [109] But
  that if that foolish person were not to enter the Order then he would
  continue to heap up Karma which would endure for a Kalpa. And it was
  because he knew that that, in his mercy, he admitted him to the
  Order.'
[etc.]

Devadatta is also mentioned as follows in the Mahayana Lotus Sutra,

I announce to you, monks, I declare to you: This Devadatta, the monk, shall in an age to come, after immense, innumerable Æons, become a Tathâgata named Devarâga (i. e. King of the gods), an Arhat, &c., in the world Devasopâna (i. e. Stairs of the gods).

Your first point seems to be a case of misreporting the incident. Milinda Panha answers the question of why Devadatta was admitted to the order:http://goo.gl/FskcxK

I think Buddha himself has answered this question in Maha-sihanada Sutta,

Here, I see no ground on which any recluse or brahman or god or Mara
  or Brahma or anyone at all in the world could, in accordance with the
  Dhamma, accuse me thus: 'While you claim full enlightenment, you are
  not fully enlightened in regard to certain things.' [72] And seeing no
  ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity.
"I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'While you claim to have destroyed the taints, these
  taints are undestroyed by you.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide
  in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity.
"I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'Those things called obstructions by you are not able
  to obstruct one who engages in them.' And seeing no ground for that, I
  abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity.
"I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'When you teach the Dhamma to someone, it does not
  lead him when he practices it to the complete destruction of
  suffering.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety,
  fearlessness and intrepidity

MN 12

While this statement points to the omniscience of Buddha, it also shows his confidence that no thing in this world is able to challenge him and his teachings.

I would probably say that Goatama's medicine was infallible, but certainly would say that he was not omniscient in the Western sense.
I have read a zen master say he wasn't, too (IIRC!).
But, perhaps he stayed silent (like Wittgenstein suggested) about what he didn't know, and he knew what he didn't knew.
IMVHO a better potentially more fruitful way of thinking about it would be to ask: did Goatama know everything there was to know about his Buddha field? And then, what was his Buddha field, did it include everything that happened or only the way sentient beings were suffering.

The Buddha Field

Yes, there are such things. For instance, the Buddha taught that the universe consists of four basic elements (mahābhūta): earth, water, fire and air. Now we know with reasonable certainity that they are not basic elements in any sense: fire is a chemical process, water is a chemical compound, air is a mix of gases and earth contains several chemical substances.

Aṅguttara Nikāya
The Book of the Fours
24 Kāḷaka

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at
  Sāketa, at Kāḷaka’s Park. There the Blessed One addressed the
  bhikkhus: “Bhikkhus!”
“Venerable sir!” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this
  population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans,
  whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after,
  examined by the mind—that I know.
“Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this
  population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans,
  whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after,
  examined by the mind—that I have directly known. It has been known by
  the Tathāgata, but the Tathāgata did not become subservient to it.
“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever
  is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by
  the mind—that I do not know,’ that would be a falsehood on my part.
“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever
  is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by
  the mind—that I both know and do not know,’ that too would be just the
  same.
“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever
  is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by
  the mind—that I neither know nor do not know,’ that would be a fault
  on my part.
(1) “So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not
  misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not
  misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees. (2)
  Having heard what can be heard, he does not misconceive the heard,
  does not misconceive the unheard, does not misconceive what can be
  heard, does not misconceive one who hears. (3) Having sensed what can
  be sensed, he does not misconceive the sensed, does not misconceive
  the unsensed, does not misconceive what can be sensed, does not
  misconceive one who senses. (4) Having cognized what can be cognized,
  he does not misconceive the cognized, does not misconceive the
  uncognized, does not misconceive what can be cognized, does not
  misconceive one who cognizes.
“Thus, bhikkhus, being ever stable among things seen, heard, sensed,
  and cognized, the Tathāgata is a stable one. And, I say, there is no
  stable one more excellent or sublime than that stable one.”
Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One
would not posit as categorically true or false
anything seen, heard, or sensed,
clung to and considered truth by others.

Since they have already seen this dart
to which people cling and adhere,

saying “I know, I see, it is just so,”
the Tathāgatas cling to nothing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is a 'pernicious' wrong belief?
Under six major wrong doings (Abhithanani) in Buddhism,
(i. matricide, ii. patricide, iii. the murder of arahants (the Consummate Ones), iv. the shedding of the Buddha's blood, v. causing schism in the Sangha, and vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi)),

vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi)

is mentioned in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html.
What is the definition of a pernicious false belief and
why is it considered such a severe offense to be in the same level as other acts?

pernicious false belief (aka "positively mistaken belief") is a wrong view (explained elsewhere) that one is firmly established in. You said you were not seeking a definition of wrong view. Is your question about the "firmly established" part then?

yeah how can one be firmly established in wrong view and why is it severe as others mentioned here?

ok this seems pretty obvious then, I will leave it for others to answer. I'm more interested in "what is wrong view" question ;)

First of all, the commentary to that sutta doesn't use the term 'niyatamicchādiṭṭhi' for the sixth abhithana, it uses the term 'aññasatthāruddesa', which means 'proclaiming another teacher', i.e. setting oneself up as a student of a teacher with views outside of the Buddha's teaching, something an enlightened being cannot do (abhabba kātuṃ).
As to what the term 'niyatamicchādiṭṭhi' (pernicious wrong belief) means, the MN tika says:

ahetukadiṭṭhiakiriyadiṭṭhinatthikadiṭṭhiyova niyatabhāvaṃ pattā niyatamicchādiṭṭhidhammā.
Views such as the view of causelessness, the view of non-action, or the view of nihilism, when fallen into a state of certainty are called states of pernicious wrong view.
(MN-t 22)

Basically, the meaning is that any wrong view becomes 'pernicious' when it is clung to as a certainty.

If you commit any of the 1st 5 (panchanathariya) you still can liberate your self from Samsara. If you have committed the 5 grave offenses, you will get definite results in the next birth. Most likely result is that you will be born in Avichi Hell. (Ajasath being a exception after doing so much good after words. ) At some stage this karma will end and by practicing the Dhamma you can come out of Samsara.
If you hold on to wrong views and do not practice the Dhamma. Then there is no way out of Samsara.
In order to practice of course your should have confidence in the teacher, the practice and your ability to practice and get results. If your faith is else where your will not practice the path leading you out of Samsara (you will be going something else instead), hence will be struck in it for ever, even though someone have done a grave offence in a part life can get enlightened in a later life getting inspired to practice the right path leading out of Samsara.

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


text:
Are there canonical texts for secular Buddhism?
Does secular Buddhism have a set of texts that are particularly relevant to it. I can imagine that there are texts that won't have any relevance to secular Buddhists such as the twin miracles. But are texts that have particular resonance even insofar as developing in a set of texts that could almost be described as a canon (in the making maybe?)

Doesn't secular imply lack of textual adherence?

@yuttadhammo possibly so. But I read it as a rejection of any perceived supernatural happenings or mechanisms. Certainly secularism implies a rejection of religion so the stance does seem paradoxical. But i guess it might boil down to the 'is Buddhism a religion or philiosophy' question that we have kicked around before. I'm not sure.

Don't throw away something as supernatural. Parapsychology [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology] is getting some traction as a formal science.

Historical Buddhist scholars trying to figure out who the historical Buddha was prefer using the Pali texts, not so much because they are canon but because they pass the various tests historians use to decide how old a text is and appear to be the oldest and closest to the original man. This isn't though a secular project, it appears to be a project that secular Buddhists seem to like. As far as we can tell, the historical Buddha was more secular than your average guy and he was a historical person. Personally, I'm not to excited about this project because immediately after the historical Buddha put forth his project, he or people around him mixed in supernatural elements.
Stephen Bachelor seems to have a preference for Pali texts, since the tend to be less devotional and more straight forward. So his project is one of taking the Pali texts and kicking out the supernatural.
David Chapman is a blogger an Meaningness and uses the tantric tradition as his starting point. Despite tantra sometimes being called Indian witchcraft, if you kick out the supernatural you have the core for a secular religion. This project would be drawing on the Tantric texts of ~800AD.
Chögyam Trungpa started with Vajrayana and wrote his own terma. Canon is a matter of institutions and supernatural beliefs about old texts. So why not write a modern text?
D. T. Suzuki took Zen and ignored all the supernatural elements to create DT Suzuki style Zen. I guess the material the DT Suzuki would be canon.
So I think this illustrates that secular Buddhism is sort of a methodology where you pick a flavor of Buddhism and kick out the supernatural, add some modern thinking from science and elsewhere. Secular Buddhists have been picking a variety of "starting points". I chose Chinese Buddhism-- the big themes in Huayen & Chan speak to me and are still there when I remove the devotionalism and supernatural.
Some of these secular Buddhists at the moment are just successful authors and teachers, Chögyam Trungpa has an institution that outlived him, although the word is Shambhala is less secular that it used to be.

I think it varies tremendously based on what tradition they are adapting their teachings from. People following a secularized vipassana tradition probably uphold the Satipatthana sutta, and secular Zen practitioners probably take interest in the Heart Sutra, the Diamond Sutra, and the Platform Sutra.
From my interactions with secular Buddhists I get the impression that when they do study canonical texts they don't have a very wide selection, just a few that they consider important.

Thanks. Your answer leads me to wonder just how coherent a movement secular Buddhism is. I might ask it  as another question.

@CrabBucket Secular Buddhism isn't coherent at all because it's not a tradition or a group coming from a common source, but rather different people from different traditions who follow just the parts of their traditions they think are compatible with secular society. Naturally, most people will have different opinions on what to keep and what not to keep, so secular Buddhists tend to be very diverse.


text:
What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity?
There is the concept of faith (śraddhā) in Buddhism. There is also the concept of faith found in Christianity.  Both concepts have been translated into the English word faith but in what ways are the concepts different and also are there ways in with the concepts have similarities.
I'd find it particularly interesting if anyone knows the original roots of the word faith in Christianity (i.e. what was the original word in Greek or Hebrew) and how the translation compares to how śraddhā has been translated. Do the words have nuances that have been lost in the translation to the simple English word faith?

these type of comparative questions are problematic in an open forum.

“We Christians have no monopoly on the Holy Spirit: “All those who are led by the Spirit of God are [daughters and] sons of God.” (Romans 8:14) ” -
“Discussing God is not the best use of our energy,” Thich Nhat Hanh writes. “If we touch the Holy Spirit, we touch God not as a concept but as a living reality.” “It is safer to approach God through the Holy Spirit than through theology,”
Excerpt From: Thich Nhat Hanh. “Living Buddha, Living Christ.”

As someone who was born into Orthodox Christian faith, has been baptized, attended church occasionally, has read full Bible, both New and Old Testament (BTW the Orthodox version of which includes 11 more "books" than the Protestant, 4 more than the Catholic), who has high respect for the teaching of Christ, appreciation of Father, and deep connection with Holy Spirit, and also as one who's been practicing and studying Buddhism for decades now, and became independent of others in regards to Buddha's message -- I suppose I'm in a good position to answer this question.
The words representing "faith" (śraddhā & pistis) in both religions share most of their semantic fields: belief, trust, confidence, loyalty. Sraddha includes a couple more meanings like assent/approval/consent/reverence, and appetite/longing/wish/expectation -- which too are connotations of "faith" as it is understood in Christianity. So overall, we have two rather similar words.
Faith in Early Christianity
The "main" definition of faith in Christianity is found in Letter to the Hebrews by the Apostle Paul and goes like this:

As for faith, it is realization of the expected and confidence in the invisible.

In Orthodox Christianity this phrase is explained as follows: "Not only we who carry Christ's name consider the faith as the greatest, but everything done in the world, even by people strange to the Church, is done by faith, since the one who does not believe that [he] will rip the grown fruits, will not tolerate the labors". Another example given is the faith of the seafarers, who "entrust their lives to a small wood" and "give themselves to unknown hopes and have by themselves only faith, which for them is more reliable than any anchor".
From this we can see that "confidence in the invisible" is not as much blind faith in the existence of something we can't verify, but rather "realization of the expected" -- confidence in the outcome of our effort, based on our prior experience and our knowledge of how the world operates. This means that as Christians interacts with the world, they are supposed to get first-hand evidence/support of why the Son's Commandments make sense, see Holy Spirit at work, and recognize the law of Father behind all.
At the same time Orthodox Christians, like Zen Buddhists, recognize that our understanding can never exhaust the depth of things. There will always remain something which escapes analysis and which can not be expressed in concepts. Therefore, any realistic view of the world necessarily includes reverent recognition of this unknowable depth of things, that which constitutes their true, indefinable essence. This appreciation of the ultimate ineffability of the Law is a major component of faith.
Standing on these two legs -- appreciation of the order of things, and fascination with the depths -- we can have courage to do what's right, even though there is no 100% explicit guarantee it will work. This is faith.
Faith in later Christianity
Where this starts breaking up, is in its application to actual Christian practice, which virtually demands a Christian to take the following creed:

I believe (pisteuo) in God,
  the Father almighty,
  Creator of heaven and earth,
  and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
  who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
  born of the Virgin Mary,
  suffered under Pontius Pilate,
  was crucified, died and was buried;
  he descended into hell;
  on the third day he rose again from the dead;
  he ascended into heaven,
  and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
  from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
  I believe in the Holy Spirit,
  the holy catholic Church,
  the communion of saints,
  the forgiveness of sins,
  the resurrection of the body,
  and life everlasting. Amen.

So as we can see, what started as very rational declaration of faith as expression of experience, understanding, gratitude, fascination, courage, and righteousness -- was later turned into an ultimatum.
Faith in Early Buddhism
Although many Buddhist define their faith as a growing conviction one gains as one is exposed to Dharma and progressively verifies it on one's own experience, this is not what I see in Pali Canon.
Instead, Buddha speaks of faith as the first phase of the path, during which the practitioner gets inspired by the message of Buddha, based solely on a verbal exposure (MN 125):

A householder or a householder's son or one born in another family hears that dhamma. Having heard that dhamma he gains faith in the Tathagata. Endowed with this faith that he has acquired, he reflects [on his life and decides to joins the spiritual path]

At this point one is called faith-follower (SN 25.3):

[1] One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill.

The following two phases will help us understand the limits of faith:

[2] One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower.
[3] One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer.

Such unwavering faith, that drives one until one sees for himself, is often mentioned in Pali Canon in context of the factors of the path, along with persistence etc. (MN 70):

For a disciple who has faith in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I'... 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.'

Faith in later Buddhism
By the time of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa (4th or 5th century CE), faith is beginning to acquire a character of dogma:

If it is asked, what is faith? Faith is full confidence in the efficacy of actions and their results (i.e. karma), in the (noble) truths, and in the Three Jewels; it is also an aspiration (for spiritual attainment) and clearminded appreciation (of the truth of Dharma).

This eventually becomes e.g. a following dogma:

How is faith perfect?
  This is believing deeply that the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha are Eternal,
  that all Buddhas of the ten directions make use of upaya,
  and that beings and icchantikas all possess the Buddha-dhatu.
It is not believing that the Tathagata is subject to birth, old age, illness, and death,
  that he has undergone austerities,
  and that Devadatta really caused blood to flow from the Buddha's body,
  that the Tathagata ultimately enters Nirvana,
  and that authentic Dharma dies out.

Reminds something, huh? :)
Summary
In both Christianity and Buddhism we can see the process of gradual codification / dogmatization of symbols and principles, this is normal. Both religions have layers, and if you explore the populations of practicing representatives of both religions, you will always find a gamut of sophistication, from the most superficial to the most profound.
Putting aside the question of the cyclic process of regression and reinstitution of Sat-Dharma (True Teaching), we can see that originally the faith in Buddhism and the faith in Christianity were kinda opposite. Indeed, like I showed above, in Christianity faith used to be an expression of one's (however limited) insight into the Cosmic Law, first and foremost in its ethical aspect. While in Buddhism faith used to refer to a condition of inspiration and unwavering drive one has until one confirms the teaching first-hand. The object of Christian faith, although implicit, is here, while the object of Buddhist faith is over there.
This is because early Buddhism is based on a metaphor of Ground, Path, and Fruition -- while Christianity is in some sense based on a metaphor of Field (whether the battlefield of good and evil, or the field of one's life). The later Buddhism, esp. some strands of Mahayana have adopted this notion of Law (Tao, Bup etc.) and became somewhat less goal-oriented, which found reflection in their definition of faith.
To finish this up, let's consider a perpetual question: which one is better? In my sincere opinion, both the faith as appreciation of the implicit and ultimately inexpressible but evidently effective Law, and the faith as putting one's trust in not yet clear but inspiring the confidence Teaching are important. One starts with the second type and eventually attains the first type. Could we go as far as to say that Buddhist path culminates in first-hand knowledge of the Law of God? May be. This is how I see it anyway ;)

It's a little appalling that the only relevant answer has apparently been downvoted.

Not really, I was just late to the party :)

+1 good answer. I had three reactions to it. -1.) I'm surprised at your conclusion, that they "were kinda opposite": because you said "confidence in the outcome of our effort", which seems to me just like the Buddhist definition, i.e. that it's what motivates/helps you to act. It is, even, confidence in the teacher (Matthew 16:13-20). -2.) The creed you mentioned is a different word (Σύμβολο): it's the object, what's believed, a flag or symbol, "this is what you must profess in order to belong to our sect."

IMO the creed was chosen not because it's core Christian values (e.g. The Greatest Commandment); almost the opposite, it's only defines the sect's position on fringe/controversial topics (e.g. "Is God one or three?" and similar arcana). Obviously, Buddhist and Christian beliefs are different. The English word "faith" is used for both, "why/how do you?" (e.g. because I am motivated by faith), and "what do you?" (e.g. the lessons which Jesus taught, and/or the doctrine of the church). IMO the question only asks about the first of these of these meaning of "faith".

-3.) I wonder whether "faith" in both (Christian and Buddhist) cases varies over the person's lifetime. In Buddhism, is "faith" more necessary at the beginning than later, after you are able to "experience it for yourself"? I suspect that something similar might be true with Christian faith, that for example "Mark 10:13-16" implies that faith might be almost childish, and "1 Corinthians Chapter 13" that faith alone is "nothing" and that the intention is to subsequently transform (make charitable) the adult person (and society).

Not disagreeing, but if I were not to contrast them, I would not be able to tie the two as path and fruit. Consider it a slight sleight of hands necessary to inspire people in the world of limited attention span ;) 2) But the creed begins with "I believe" (greek Πιστεύω/pisteuo). 3) No, those two are different contexts. OMG 1 Corinthians 13 is ever so beautiful :)

+1 for a good, balanced discussion, despite your (gentle) personal opinion at the end.

There's a Wikipedia article here about the word "faith" in Christianity; which begins,

The word "faith", translated from the Greek πιστις (pi'stis), was primarily used in the New Testament with the Greek perfect tense and translates as a noun-verb hybrid; which is not adequately conveyed by the English noun.

An explanation of what the Greek perfect tense is can be found here:

Perfect Tense
The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an
  action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing
  on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has
  reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence.
  Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action,
  the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state
  of a completed past action.
For example, Galatians 2:20 should be translated "I am in a present
  state of having been crucified with Christ," indicating that not only
  was I crucified with Christ in the past, but I am existing now in that
  present condition.

"...having been rooted and grounded in love," Eph
    3:17

Sentences which summarize it include,

The pi'stis-group words in the New Testament can thus be interpreted as relating to ideas of faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, commitment, trust, belief, and proof. The most appropriate interpretation and translation of pi'stis-group words in the New Testament is a matter of recent controversy, particularly over the meaning of pi'stis when it is directed towards Jesus.[4]

Do the words have nuances that have been lost in the translation to the simple English word faith?
Based on the Wikipedia article, perhaps it implies a personal connection, the "fidelity" of human relationships: "Jesus is/was my friend", and "do this is remembrance of me", that kind of thing.
I won't try to say what the same word was used to mean, in the Old Testament.
The use of the "perfect" tense (meaning 'completed', not meaning 'without fault') is appropriate for referring to actions which have been completed (e.g. Jesus's life, death, and resurrection; a Christian's past baptism causing their present salvation; etc.): see also the notion of Christianity as "good news".

Per Wikipedia (here and here), the Buddhist word "faith" also (i.e. perhaps similarly to the Christian word) includes the meanings of "trust" and "loyalty".
The descriptions given in this article seem to me to imply that the words have the following in common:

Hear that something exists (dharma or law)
Trust in the spiritual attainment of the teacher (Buddha or Christ)
Practice/study/discovery of what the message really means
Happiness, confidence, satisfaction if/when/because one is able to align one's life with one's faith

If I recall correctly (from some verses in the palicanon) then even the mere ability to trust/believe resp to have faith that the direction the teacher directs me shall be helpful/healthy/worth-the-effort. From which I take (for myself) that "trust" or the "ability-to-trust" is for the spiritual seeker similar to the ability of a sportsman simply to move, run or basically to metabolize physical tension and by this is able to improve physical fitness.

Faith is a central concept to Christianity, but like Buddhism, Christianity has different branches and the views differ somewhat in each. The wikipedia article on Faith in Christianity gives a fair summary of some of these views.
The Original (Ancient Greek) word that is translated to 'faith' in English versions of the New Testament is:
pistis ( πίστις ),
Phonetic Spelling: (pis'-tis),
Definition: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness. (source)
This word appears in the New Testament 243 times and is a key concept in the teachings of Jesus Christ in particular. The closest the Bible comes to providing an explicit definition of the word is found in the 'faith hall of fame' chapter of the bible in Hebrews 11 (NIV) which is somewhat lengthy, but entirely germane:

Faith in Action
1. Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
2. This is what the ancients were commended for.
3. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4. By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5. By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7. By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
8. By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13. All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17. By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
20. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.
21. By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.
22. By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning the burial of his bones.
23. By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24. By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29. By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
30. By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.
31. By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.
32. And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.
39. These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

As you can see, it starts with a short definition of sorts, but the overwhelming sense of the passage is that faith produces action; indeed as it says elsewhere in the Bible:

In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. - James 2:17 NIV

Not being an expert or even one moderately acquainted with the tenets of Buddhism, I hesitate to delineate the significant differences between the use of faith in the two religions with any authority or to any great depth. However, if I can assume Suminda's answer's definition as a solid basis, I see commonalities and I see differences.  The main commonality would be the strong relation of faith to practice (as per the last verse quoted); the main difference would be that Christianity has a strong emphasis on the relational nature of faith as trusting in 'the living God' as one would trust a (living) person - not in giving mental assent to a theological proposition, but in taking the person on face value, trusting their word and following and obeying them - Christian prayer is a manifestation of this relational faith in the living God.
Summary: The Christian definition of 'faith' is highly nuanced beyond the normal English definition of the word and in some ways significantly differs from the common understanding.

SFAIK Buddhism includes a similarly "relational" faith, in that it puts trust a.k.a. "takes refuge" in the Buddha himself, as well as empirically experiencing the result of belief/practice.

@ChrisW You cannot draw parallels of this with other religions in any apple to apple way. Even matter of fact fruit to fruit. Possible comparisons will be like a football to orange like and will definitely lead to confusion.

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala Perhaps I must. "Drawing parallels" is what this question is asking: it asks, "What are the differences/similarities"? I suspect it would be a mistake to assume that they're completely different in every way, just as it's also incorrect to assume they're completely the same in every way. And, we might believe that Buddhism has or is a "one true way" in its definition of "faith", but (like Christianity) even Buddhism or Buddhists seem to have various different types of 'faith'.

@ChrisW Interesting, but pehaps you could clarify this - is this form of trust in the Buddha as a living interactive person or in his teaching/method/advice/system? For instance, regarding the former, could a Buddhist exercise a relational form of faith by asking and expecting to receive answers to prayers made to the Buddha?

Perhaps you could ask that, as a new question? For the earliest Buddhists he was a living interactive person, and the premier example/evidence of his own advice. In our time, there's a partial answer in the "external" and "internal" paragraphs of this section which talk about the Buddha (from a Theravada tradition). And there are other traditions (e.g. Pure Land) which apparently 'pray', but I know very little about them/that.

There is no concept of prayers in Buddhism. You pay respect to the Triple Gem with gratitude like you look up to your teachers in Asian cultures. (Generally you prostrate before a teacher for respect. )

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala I believe you may be right, that there is probably no such concept in Theravada; but, on the other hand I'm not sure that you know what a 'prayer' is. However there are apparently things translated as 'prayers' in other forms of Buddhism (which as I said I know very little about): e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=prayer+rebirth+in+the+pure+land and https://www.google.com/search?q=prayer+transfer+merit

The role of faith is as follows:

Other teachings: unquestioned belief in a dogma or central teaching, which cannot be verified through practice, which cannot be questioned or scrutinised, and which generally is a promise after death that cannot be realized within this lifetime and experienced here and now. Also here is an entity which saves a person or decided the fate of an individual or a law giver. Also there is a sect which is rewarded concept based on acceptance, faith, etc.
Buddhism: faith is some belief in the practice to seriously try it out to start with. Each step in the Dhamma when you get close to the final goal thus your faith is strengthened when you see / verify / understand the teaching at the experiential level here and now. The teaching is not a promise after death which is not verifiable, hence you can gain and strengthen your faith when you see things as they are, though practice and direct experience. If needed the Dhamma is open for scrutiny as it can stand such scrutiny thus a source of inspiration and faith after such exercise (this is how many of the early western Buddhists did become Buddhists). In Buddhism there is not law give. Regardless of what you call your self (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.), if you practice according to the teachings you will get the same benefits (Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)#Qualities_of_Buddha_Dharma)

To elaborate more on the Buddhist view on faith I give the following example. If you do not have faith in a doctor your will not got to him. If you do not have faith in his medicine you will not take it. Once you have faith in the doctor and medicine and you take the medicine and then you get better you know the prescription works and the doctor is indeed not a quaker. In this case Buddha is the doctor and the prescription is the Dhamma. Buddhism is based on psychology and Buddha was one of the greatest psychologist. In this regard you can draw a week parallel on the role of faith in compassion as faith you will have in a psychologist or particular treatment and faith in a religion. As I said this is a week analogy as Buddhists you have to have lot of gratitude as if not for his discovery we will not have this treatment and if not for the monastic tradition that did not preserved this we will have not got it. According to the birth stories the search for the solution lasted unimaginable life times and lot of pain, hence much deeper gratitude is required towards the Buddha than a doctor who might cure you one. (See Buddhism and Modern Psychology and Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World)
Also another analogy is teacher student relationship. If you do not trust your teacher you will not lean what he teachers and hence cannot benefit from what you have been taught. E.g. if some one is teaching you archery, and you do not think what is taught is indeed the best way to aim, or your teacher is good at it, you will not learn and also will not be skilled at it as you have not practiced as taught. Also again you need deeper gratitude towards the Buddha for his higher dedication for teaching and also the quality of the teaching. In comparison to Western Psychology, the Buddhist treatment is much superior in terms of the results and consistency.
The Pali word Sradha doesn't translate well into English as faith since when you say faith it can be a belief with no proof or warrent. Better term would be confidence. Buddhism is not faith based but confidence players a significant role. Good analogy would be a Buddhist science teacher teaching. If you follow the instructions in the experiment as it is you can get reproducible results regardless of whether the students call them selves Christian, Muslim, etc. but you have to have confidence in the teacher to the extent that he is knowledgeable and teaching you the right method. Lack of confidence mean that you will not learn properly and also follow the method properly. In case you follow the instructions accordingly you get the results and not doing so will not give you the results, but each and everyone who take the right steps will get results. Also you can compare this to baking a cake. More faithful you are to a great recipe, more better the outcome would be. (Keep in mind that the reproducibility is more like in a drug trial, or balance of probability, or statistical than that of a physics or chemistry experiment.)
Also there are 3 stages of wisdom which is linked to confidence:

on hearing you feel the message sounds right
on further thinking about what you heard you see it is logical
when you practice and see for yourself your confidence becomes even stronger

I am answering this in a more generic fashion than targeted at a particular other faith by negation (taking the opposite meaning) of the 6 qualities of the Buddha Dhamma. So this is not targeted at any faith, but should be opposite of qualities of the Dhamma. Some faith based systems may not have or not have this at a varying degree. I just bundled this  "other teachings", but some may have some of the characteristics the Dhamma. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)#Qualities_of_Buddha_Dharma)
The 6 qualities of the Dhamma in detail (taken from Wikipedia):

Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed" or "self-announced"). The Buddha's teaching is not a speculative philosophy but an exposition of the Universal Law of Nature based on a causal analysis of natural phenomena. It is taught, therefore, as a science rather than a sectarian belief system. Full comprehension (enlightenment) of the teaching may take varying lengths of time but Buddhists traditionally say that the course of study is 'excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end' (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom).
Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dharma is open to scientific and other types of scrutiny and is not based on faith. It can be tested by personal practice and one who follows it will see the result for oneself by means of one's own experience. Sandiṭṭhiko comes from the word sandiṭṭhika which means visible in this world and is derived from the word sandiṭṭhi-. Since Dhamma is visible, it can be "seen": known and be experienced within one's life.
Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "timeless, immediate"). The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now. There is no need to wait for the future or a next existence. The dhamma does not change over time and it is not relative to time.
  Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" — from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma invites all beings to put it to the test and come see for themselves.
Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). Followed as a part of one's life the dhamma leads one to liberation. In the "Vishuddhimagga" this is also referred to as "Upanayanam." Opanayiko means "to be brought inside oneself". This can be understood with an analogy as follows. If one says a ripe mango tastes delicious, and if several people listen and come to believe it, they would imagine the taste of the mango according to their previous experiences of other delicious mangoes. Yet, they will still not really know exactly how this mango tastes. Also, if there is a person who has never tasted a ripe mango before, that person has no way of knowing exactly for himself how it tastes. So, the only way to know the exact taste is to experience it. In the same way, dhamma is said to be Opanayiko which means that a person needs to experience it within to see exactly what it is.
Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be meant to perceive directly"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Buddha) who have matured in supreme wisdom. No one can "enlighten" another person. Each intelligent person has to attain and experience for themselves. As an analogy, no one can simply make another know how to swim. Each person individually has to learn how to swim. In the same way, dhamma cannot be transferred or bestowed upon someone. Each one has to know for themselves.

Sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)

You incorrectly characterise the fole of faith in Christianity - the definition you provide is a strawman definition of faith favoured by atheists. It is irreconcileable to how faith is defined and modeled in the Christian bible.

@bruisedreed thanks for the comment on this. Even if you could post an about the Christian view of faith I think many of us would find that hugely interesting. I would ceratinly upvote even if technically you were only answering half the question. I know that when a Jewish woman came to our Buddhist centre and someone gave a 'strawman' view of faith in other religions she was quite offended

I voted up the comment of @bruisedreed and want to add one more thing: I really do not understand for what reason buddhist people answer to aspects of a question of which they have knowledge and/or understanding at most only by hearsay.

Sorry to offend any body. My answer is not meant to do this. This is taken directly from the 6 properties of the Buddha's teaching with one I put with the possible meaning opposite to the properties and one with which is the properties of Buddha's teaching.

You seem to be saying that "faith is necessary in order to get you to practice", and "after you practice then you have experience and not just faith", and "Buddhism is a science of life and human psychology, and not just speculation about the after-life." All of that, about Buddhism, is not a bad answer. It was your other, opening statements about Christianity that some people find incorrect: that Christian faith is "unquestioned belief", "cannot be verified", "cannot be realized in this lifetime", "cannot be experienced", etc.

Another slight problem with this answer is that most of it is talking about Dharma, and saying that Dharma is not merely a matter of faith. Well, OK, but that's not the question: the question was, what is faith? Specifically, what is "śraddhā" (assuming that translating it into one English word "faith" isn't very precise)? The Wikipedia article on that subject is quite short (but see also Faith in Buddhism).

Let me clarify - there was no offence taken, I just disagreed with you :)

Added another paragraph.

@Suminda I think there are certain things in Buddhism where even the arahants accept out of faith. You can't explain Buddhist faith with examples like repeating the experiment of a teacher. As an example here's a dialog between Buddha and his best student Sariputta on how he accepts Buddha's wisdom out of faith http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg90.htm

Thanks for that extra paragraph. I wondered why the Kalama Sutta says you must be a "disciple of the noble ones", if it's only following a recipe. This Sutta says, "Saddha is not blind faith. It is confidence based on knowledge.", which is what you wrote, and it also says, "Herein a householder is possessed of faith, he believes in the Enlightenment of the Perfect One etc" which I think means "faith in the Buddha" not just "faith in your own experience".

From Stream Entry you have unshakable confidence as you have seen and verified the reality as it is. Also the Sutta gives the basis of the conclusion. Also "linage of faith" special ability Sariputta had. I think we should look at another traslation or the Pali term here as I am not sure if this is the best rendering.

Before you can get to faith in your experience you have to have some confidence in the teacher and teaching to practice and practice properly.

Analogies are not perfect. Just trying to get the point across. Any body who walks the path gets the results. More like a psychological treatment it is not that clear cut like cooking.

What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity?
Faith is an English word. It is defined in Oxford Dictionaries:
Definition of faith in English:
1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
2.1[count noun]A particular religion.
‘the Christian faith’
2.2[count noun]A strongly held belief.
Definitions 2, 2.1 and 2.2 are applicable to faith in Christianity.
These definitions are not applicable to Buddhism because there is no God in Buddhism. This gets further complicated by the fact that there are numerous Buddhist traditions.
Dhamma of Lord Buddha (Sammasambudda), 'four noble truths' (Cattari Ariyasaccani), from which all Buddhist traditions have been developed after the Parinibbana (extinction without remainder), does not entertain faith or  beliefs in any form.
Dhamma is without beliefs.

The Pali scriptures refer to faith (saddha) in two most basic ways, namely:
(1) The 1st of the five spiritual faculties (indriya).
(2) The 1st of the five spiritual powers (bala).
Therefore, faith is the 1st mental quality required for any kind of spiritual activity. The other spiritual faculties & powers are energy, mindfulness, concentration & wisdom.
The spiritual 'faculty' of faith represents the mental capacity for belief, trust or conviction.
The spiritual 'power' of faith represents the mental capacity or faculty of faith put into action & bringing spiritual results or fruit.
Thus, the Christian teachings also distinguish between mere faith & the power of faith.

Matthew 17:20  Jesus answered, “You were not able to make the demon go
out, because your faith is too small. Believe me when I tell you, if
your faith is only as big as a mustard seed you can say to this
mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. You will be
able to do anything.”
Matthew 21:21  Jesus answered, “The truth is, if you have faith and no doubts, you will be able to do the same as I did to this tree. And
you will be able to do more. You will be able to say to this mountain,
‘Go, mountain, fall into the sea.’ And if you have faith, it will
happen.
James 2:14 [ Faith and Good Works ] My brothers and sisters, if a person claims to have faith but does nothing, that faith is worth
nothing. Faith like that cannot save anyone.
James 2:17 If it is just faith and nothing more—if it doesn’t do anything — it is dead.
James 2:18  But someone might argue, “Some people have faith, and others have good works.” My answer would be that you can’t show me
your faith if you don’t do anything. But I will show you my faith by
the good I do.
James 2:24  So you see that people are made right with God by what they do. They cannot be made right by faith alone.

One major difference is the objects of faith. In Christianity, faith is in conditioned phenomena. In Buddhism, faith is in both conditioned & unconditioned phenomena, as follows:

Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is reckoned to be the best of them all: the crushing of all infatuation,
the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the cutting off of
the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion,
Nibbāna. Those who have faith in the Dhamma of dispassion have faith
in the best; and for those who have faith in the best, the best result
will be theirs. AN 4.34

For example, there was a time when the famous Christian nun Mother Teresa lost her faith:

"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and
the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do
not hear," she wrote the Rev. Michael van der Peet in September 1979.

If Mother Teresa had faith in the silence & emptiness, her mind may have reached the unconditioned Nibbana.


text:
Why do I feel irritated after sitting for long hours?
After sitting for 2-3 hours in a day there is a sense of annoyance that follows the littlest of things that are normally overlooked. Maybe this is because of heightened awareness or lack of tolerance for family and friends. It even happens at retreats during the earlier days. My teacher says sankharas are coming up.
So is it right to assume that the more I sit, the more annoyed I will get and the more annoyed I will get I the more I should sit? If that makes sense.
I do practice 5-10 minutes of metta bhavana at the end of the sit. But I don't feel like it comes naturally. And to my knowledge forced metta is as good as no metta?

Maybe you should consider replacing "sitting" with "sitting in meditation"

@yoda suggestion for edit or answer to my question??

These can arise if you do not develop the right type of concentration and awareness

If your meditation is an active struggle to keep your focus on a particular meditation subject stress arise
If you are not equanimous to sensations (and reacting to them with dislike or liking) during meditation your will get stressed

If you abandon the above two meditation will reduce stress.
Kindness meditation also can help. 1st you should create peace and serenity in your mind and then wish you share this with other. If this is not there in your mind and / or you are not sincere, this will be just repeating words. So 1st examine your self to see if you have happiness within you then start kindness meditation.
Being week in morality also causes agitations and leads to manifestation of the hindrances. So you base of morality should be strong.
When past fabrications come up it gives different sensations. In this case most likely unpleasant or not being a sensation you crave for, which is causing the problem. What ever sensation or experience you get be equanimous. Then you will not get stressed.

It's possible you're going through the Knowledge of Dispassion/Disgust stage described by Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga, Mahasi Sayadaw, and modern authors like Daniel Ingram. I've gone through it too, and so have many others.
Generally, the clearest indication of this is whether or not you've crossed the Knowledge of Arising & Passing Away, as once you have, you tend to be stuck at stage 6 of the Visuddhimagga's Stages of Purification. However, some people (such as myself) wind up in stage 6 for the first time without any recollection of having done so.
Another indication is if you find yourself experiencing periods of strong equanimity interspersing periods of intensely negative feelings like disgust, fear or misery. Generally, these other feelings would be noticeable, but not necessarily for everyone - I've never had any strong feelings of fear in my practice, for example.
If the irritation is completely isolated though and remains that way, it's probably got some other cause such as heightened sensitivity.


text:
What were the conditions laid down by Ananda when asked to be Buddhas personal attendant?
Apparently there were 8 wholesome conditions laid down by Ananda when he was asked to be Buddhas attendant at the age of 55. What were they?

That's told in this biographical summary of Ananda:

The Buddha was never to give him any choice food
or garment (*) gotten by him,
nor appoint for him a separate "fragrant cell" (residence),
nor include him in the invitations accepted by the Buddha.
Further he was to be allowed to accept invitations on behalf of the Buddha;
to bring to the Buddha those who came to see him from afar;
to place before the Buddha all his perplexities,
and the Buddha was to repeat to him any doctrine taught in his absence.

It's the same list here.
And here:

Ananda was in no way proud that the Master had preferred him to his
  greatest disciples, but instead asked a favor of having eight
  conditions fulfilled.
First of all, the Master should never pass a gift of robes on to him;
  second, he should never give him any almsfood, which he himself had
  received; third, having received a dwelling place he should never give
  it to him; fourth, never to include him in any personal invitation
  (such as an occasion for teaching Dhamma when a meal would be
  offered).
Besides these four negative conditions, he also had four positive
  wishes, namely: if he was invited to a meal, he asked for the right to
  transfer this invitation to the Buddha; if people came from outlying
  areas, he asked for the privilege to lead them to the Buddha; if he
  had any doubts or inquiries about the Dhamma, he asked for the right
  to present these to the Buddha at any time; and if the Buddha gave a
  discourse during his absence, he asked for the privilege to have the
  Buddha repeat it to him privately.
He explained his reasons for these requests in this way: if he did not
  pose the first four conditions, then people could say that he had
  accepted the post of attendant only because of material gain. But if
  he did not express the other four conditions, then it could rightly be
  said that he fulfilled the duties of his post without being mindful of
  his own advancement on the Noble Path.
The Buddha granted him these very reasonable requests, which were
  quite in accordance with the teaching.

I don't know which Sutta these are from.

They are from the Jataka commentary to Jat 456. It's here


text:
What is the text in which the Buddha gets a migraine?
In the Great Minds of the Eastern Intellectual Tradition lecture series Grant Hardy mentions that there is a Buddhist sutra or text when the Buddha gets a migraine (it's probably not described as a migraine I should imagine). It's apparently an example of the fruits Buddha's previous karma arising even after he was enlightened. Does anyone know the text that this happens in?

Thanks for asking! I'd heard about it too (in a Dan Ingram Buddhist Geeks podcast, I think) but could never find it. BTW, could you give a rough location to where it's mentioned in Hardy's lecture series.

This is explained in Why the Buddha Suffered (The Connection with Previous Deeds / Apadāna 39.10).

Is this what you are looking for?

It is the one. Particularly as there are a lot of other ailments which Grant Hardy alluded to. Thanks

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala, the first two of those links seem to be broken. Can you check them?

The site is down but this is in the Apadana. Matter of finding another translation.


text:
Meditating and including buddhist philosophy in your life without abandoning previous religious beliefs?
Is there a way where someone (could meditate and take up certain Buddhist practices without initiation into Buddhism?
This is just a question to understand theory, not directed to be anything argumentative or offensive
Thank you and Peace!

You can try doing a meditation course under the tutelage of Mr SN Goenka. It is open to people from all religions and the practice does not demand any conversion of sorts. You can remain Jewish yet follow the Sila, samadhi, panna (morality, concentration,wisdom) path as taught by Buddha. The results of which are here and now and the path is universal.

Let me refer you to "Everything Is God: The Radical Path of Nondual Judaism" by Jay Michaelson. It offers many interesting thoughts on compatibility of Judaism with Tibetan Buddhism.

I see no problem at the start but suspect that a belief in monotheism will become an obstacle quite quickly.

For the sake of discussion, and (by searching Mi Yodeya) to try to answer from the Jewish perspective,

This answer warns that certain practices (e.g. bowing) might be seen as "devotional".
And this answer, that worshipping the Buddha or seeing him as God-like would be prohibited.
This answer says,

For a Jew to burn incense in front of a statue is horrifying, no matter what he will say are his inner intents. Similarly, the proclamation, "In Buddha I find refuge" is a catastrophe for the Jewish soul.

... but it also (rightly or wrongly) claims that,

Today, this refinement process is extending to Buddhism. Many Jews began their spiritual trek with the path of Buddha and continued by discovering their own heritage in Torah. A twofold process occurs: Buddhism has evolved more in the past thirty years than in all its history before, to the point that what is presented today in America as Buddhism is already more Jewish than it is Buddhist. And, secondly, when those practicing "Jubus" return to Jewish practice, they reject those aspects that are anathematic to Torah, while making good use of those aspects that are complimentary.

These answers suggest that Judaism already has some forms/objects of meditation of its own.

The universe is host to a multitude of beings. In order to make connections with the angels and beings you must practice as they say. I am Muslim-Buddhist and I have recited various mantras from so many religions to see which sound feels good (mantrayana).
Furthermore, if saying a mantra, burning a candle, is a way to connect to a deity and get their blessings... Then try it! You'd be surprised at real-ness of spiritual blessings.
Buddhism is actually the least religious and you can actually follow the Noble Truths, the holy grail of Buddhism and psychology, without any religious stuff.

As a Catholic Christian I would not be praying to "angels"; and I would also be expected to believe in "one" God, and not in trying to connect to "a deity" among many others.

The universe is a multitude of beings. Some of them ascended, some realized, most of them not. You can connect to many of them provided you follow their instructions.
By saying you believe in a "God" you will be limited to practicing the core psychologically beneficial aspects of Buddhism such as the Four Noble Truths and 3 poisons and 6 paramitas.
Nonetheless, to apply the principle that I introduced to you, learn the rules of your God exactly and follow them to the dot. Why? There is esoteric benefits involved. So be a very good Catholic!
And become aware of your mind (meditate).

"Learn the rules of your God exactly and follow them to the dot" sounds like something which Saint Francis of Assisi might have tried to do. But anyway, if you read this question it was from a believer who wants to "take up certain Buddhist practices without actually forfeiting monotheism".

Exactly. If you could emulate Saint Francis, you'd reach the pinnacle that is beyond religion, the apex where all religions are one.

From a Buddhist perspective that's fine. The Buddha gave his teachings in order to alleviate the sufferings of living beings, and last time I checked that includes everyone, not just Buddhists. If a non-Buddhist wants to take up certain aspects of Buddhist practices because they feel it will help them, then that is fine.
Are you wondering about any particular practice in particular?

Well I really appreciate meditation but if i was to simply think of good thoughts and positive vibrations/healing instead of trying to invoke the Buddha or any sage, would that be acceptable?

@Arkapur That's totally fine. I myself as a practicing Buddhist don't invoke the Buddha or Buddhist figures either.

Good answer. Added a bit more in my answer.

I think we can split Buddhism in 3 different levels of commitment:

Meditation, Dana (charity) and basic Sila (precepts). In this level, you can easily keep any peaceful religion, you will benefit from meditation and people will feel you are slowly changing, more inclined to a spiritual life, usually your family/friends/priests/bishops etc. will not see it as a threat.
Lay Buddhist Life. Here you may have some conflicts depending on your religion and how orthodox you are. Lay buddhists may prostrate and take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. This is where your previous religion may tell you that you are turning your back on them.
The life of a monk/recluse.

So, as long as you commit to the first level, i.e:  meditating; cultivating generosity; refraining from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and intoxicants, you should be fine with your current religion.
Problems will arise if you want to progress in the Buddha's teachings while keeping your current religion, but it is up to you; the path is there, it is your choice.

Buddhist training is around:

Morality
Development of a controlled mind
Develop true understanding of reality and wisdom

There would be no religion which is incompatible with this.
Also, Buddhist meditation revolves around how to get out of stress and misery. Any religion will not be opposed to someone seeing a psychologist. Likewise, there is no issue with someone taking up Buddhist Meditation.
As you see things for yourself, any wrong views will be abandoned as you see things at the experiential level. The main thing is getting started, not worrying about theoretical aspects which you have not seen at the experiential level (In Buddhism, any theory not put into practice is of little use). What you see at the empirical level is what you should consider as reality (Dhamma). Also, care should be taken not to jump to conclusions when you have seen things partially, either at the experiential level or through logical deduction. You are in the best position to judge this when you have reached the final goal, i.e. liberation of your mind from stress.

Monotheism falls under Sassatha Ditti. It is one of the two false views that prevents one from progressing in the path. Such beliefs are called Maggavarana Ditti. But it does not prevent the path to heavens. Then again, you don't really need Buddhism to reach heavens. But if Nibbana is what you are looking for, you have to give up Monotheism at some point. You won't get far as long as you cling to such a belief.
Buddha preached the Dhamma to non-Buddhists, but they gave up their false views once they've embraced the Dhamma. Nobody attained enlightenment while still retaining such misbeliefs. It's not even technically possible.

I think your argument for saying that "Monotheism falls under Sassatha Ditti" is that Sassatavada is (wrong) belief in an eternal/unchanging Self, and, that monotheism claims that God is a Self who is eternal/unchanging.

@ChrisW, Yes, exactly!

There are a lot of Jewish Buddhists. There is even a slang term for it (Jewbu or Jubu).
Wikipedia's Jewish Buddhist article says.

A large demographic of Jewish Buddhists, constituting its majority, still maintain religious practices and beliefs in Judaism coupled with Buddhist practices and perhaps beliefs.
Since most Buddhists do not consider the Buddha to have been a "god", Jewish Buddhists do not consider Buddhist practice to be "worship". In addition, many Buddhists (particularly Theravada Buddhists) do not "worship" the Buddha but instead "revere" and "express gratitude" for the Buddha's [...] accomplishment and compassionate teaching [...]. In Mahayana Buddhism (the dominant form of Buddhism in the world today), the Trikaya (three bodies) Doctrine, and praying to Buddha as savior in Pure Land Buddhism significantly blurs the issue for Jews of whether Buddhism is a religion and whether Buddha is considered a God.[citation needed]

There's more information ("Further reading", "External links", etc.) in the Wikipedia article.
I believe the best example of a "Jewbu" is Leonard Cohen who is a Zen practitioner.

Meditation as a healthy practice of "spiritual hygiene" is not limited to Buddhist practitioners though the language used to teach meditation is easily accessible through Buddhist teachings.  Contemplative practice is part of Judaism and other religious traditions.  Jewish Buddhist retreats combining practices from both traditions in the setting of competent teaching and supportive community are available.  See www.truenorthinsight.com for further information.

There is a misconception that Buddhism is a religion, and that you worship Buddha.
Buddhism is a practice, like yoga. You can be a Christian and practice Buddhism. I met a Catholic priest who live in a Buddhist monastery in France. He told me that Buddhism makes him a better Christian. I love that.
— Thich Nhat Hanh

Yes of course. HHDL regularly agrees that anyone can take up some Buddhist practices without becoming a Buddhist and also advises against changing ones tradition. Practice what is helpful. Abstain from what is not.

First of all, for anybody who wants to remain a practicing Abrahamic, I would recommended that they steer clear of any kind of Buddhist sect that features a "living" Buddha.  (And, likewise, anybody who wishes to renounce Abrahamic theology should avoid converting to a "living" Buddha-sect -- the similarities are too strong, and you would end up practicing Abrahamism by another name.)
A living Buddha is one whose spirit is said to still exist, and be accessible to to humans by means of petition, holiness and sacrifice, and who can influence events in ones favor, in the afterlife or possibly in this life.  Aside from being idolotrous (from an Abrahamic perspective), it is a gateway to superstition, and a form of attachment, wholly incompatible with the early Buddhism revealed through the Pali canon.
A non-returner Buddha, however, is much more compatible with monotheism, with atheism, with secularism, with almost any -ism you can throw at it.  This Buddha never promised people a destiny of luxury and bliss; he taught others how to think rationality about the inevitability of suffering, in this life, in previous lives, even in the afterlife, so long as you continue to exist as an individual with its own wants and needs.  That is the first (and second) noble truth.  He taught people that suffering can be greatly reduced, if they control themselves and discipline their minds.  Mindful meditation clears the mind; it eliminates unskillful motives, like boredom, loneliness, empty fantasies, and desire for control over the future.  It can even help with dependencies and additions.  It can be practiced with religious, superstitious, secular, even atheistic intent, depending on what is most effective for you personally.
How does this relate to Abrahamism?  It does not directly attack the most valued Abrahamic orthodoxies.  Although the Buddha himself was not a monotheistic worshipper (he knew better), he would not argue with you about mysticism and metaphysical questions.  He would want to advise you, like he did his contemporaries, on how to make the most of your situation, in your day-to-day life; and he would ask you whether you are spending your time and mental energy most effectively.
Another way to think of it--this may be very controversial--would be that the historical Buddha himself would never take up arms in defense of any country or system of government; but there is no reason why you, as an ordinary person, cannot attempt to study and contemplate the Four Noble Truths, and practice mindfulness, even if you were drafted into the military in a country with universal military service.  If your spiritual journey is such that you haven't yet given up the household life; if you, unlike the Buddha, have property and family to protect; there is no reason why you shouldn't defend your possessions, your family, and the regime that makes your profession, property claims, and civil rights possible; and honor your ancestors, who died defenseless, in so doing.

Thanks for the advice. Yes I find the only last paragraph quite controversial -- I'd imagine that the first precept might require a practicing Buddhist to be a "conscientious objector" ... though I realise that there are Buddhist countries too which have more-or-less universal conscription into military service.

I would look to the Kalama Sutta
The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry, and Bikkhu Bodhi's excellent essay A Look at the Kalama Sutta, to help understand the situation. As the sutta outlines there are many benefits for this group who are not disciples of Buddha and do not approach him already as their guide, to investigating what resonates with them in Buddhism and taking up it's practices. But, the benefits will be limited to better rebirth, without faith in the Four Noble Truths - that this thing 'awakening' exists and the Eightfold Path is the way to it, which cannot be understood through reason and doubt. Taking refuge as a monk is to profess such a faith, and dedicate to acting on it.
The Pali Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views, discussed in Susan Elbaum Jootla's essay Teacher Of The Devas, has a very interesting and radical take on monotheism, discussed in relation to Mahabrahma, the divine or ultimate reality. The Buddhist view is that the cosmos is uncreated, it only goes through cycles, and Mahabrahma mistakenly came to belief in being Creator as the first in this realm after an era in which it was emptied. And that fundamentally, Mahabrahma faces the same issues around suffering and awakening as all beings, just over a vastly longer lifespan.
So, I would say there are two ways to approach this. Either god has to be understood in a Buddhist way, as more humble than theologists tend to picture.
Or the Kalamas picture, of various consolations and benefits that can be attained, but not liberation from suffering. I would note 'atheist' Buddhists like Stephen Batchelor would also be in this position.
Types of monotheism vary widely in what their attitudes to combining practices will be. Reform Judaism likely fine, Hassidic - no way. Sufi, Wahabbi. Catholic, Quaker. It's not going to be Buddhists who have a problem, the Kalama Sutra clearly lays at that there can be many benefits even to only taking up some lay practices. Your real question is, what will the community of your other practice/s say?

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


text:
Meditation and good deeds vs clarity of mind during death
How important is meditation practice and doing good deeds in comparison to having a clear mind during death in order to reach nibbana or be at least reborn in a good realm?
For example, if one meditates daily almost his whole life and does good deeds but then dies in a car accident, overwhelmed by the fear and the shock of this event, what are the chances of a good rebirth for this person? In other words: Is the quality of rebirth determined only be the state of mind during death or is it also influenced by karma which one has accumulated during his life?
It also gets maybe a little tricky, since people with near-death experiences report having a flash of all events in their life in addition to getting information about the impact their deeds had on their own and other people's minds.

FYI I found What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying which describes what might be a more likely scenario than dying in a car accident: i.e. dying slowly and potentially painfully in a hospital or nursing home.

Ultimately, the moment of death consciousness is all that counts. That consciousness, however, is of course partially conditioned by all the good and bad deeds one has performed in the past, especially since one's life tends to flash before one's eyes just before that last moment, leading one to often cling to this or that memory or idea.
Technically, there are four potential types of karma that determine the nature of the last moment of one's life (Vism XIX.15):

garu-kamma (weighty karma) - if one has killed one's mother or father, for example. These types of karma outweigh any other possible result; one who has performed these at some time in this life cannot help but go to hell in their next existence.
bahula-kamma (frequent karma) - if one has performed a certain karma with great frequency, this will be the next candidate for adherence at the moment of death.
aasanna-kamma (dying karma) - if there is no particular karma that stands out as habitual, the most likely single karma to cause rebirth is karma performed at the moment of death, for example getting angry or upset, crying or clinging to something, or listening to the dhamma or meditating.
kattata-kamma (merely performed karma) - finally, the last karma to lead to rebirth is some karma that comes to mind at the moment of death, even at random.

Of course, besides the first of the four, one's state of mind at the moment of death can potentially nullify all karma and even lead one to not be reborn again. The point is that, regardless of what colours it, it is that last moment that leads to rebirth (or nibbana).
This is exemplified by the interesting story of Queen Mallika (Dhp-A 151), who was a devoted Buddhist who performed great acts of charity and morality, but died remembering a single act of deception towards her husband and therefore went to hell. After spending seven days in hell, she died again and was reborn in heaven due to her good deeds. Perhaps this also suggests that one's rebirth itself isn't as important as one's karma, since it will all generally work its way out in the end.

So there is a hell in buddhism?

Not just one, 4 of them. Read 31 planes of existence http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

In the traditional cosmology, there are hells. It would be hairsplitting to note that you eventually die in hell and get to leave as opposed to say a Christian hell, where you stay there forever. If we dispense with the cosmologies altogether, that's a different sort of Buddhism & this Q is tagged with rebirth & pali-canon, so I'm guessing yuttadhammo would be authoritative on the question.

many thanks to yuttadhammo as well as the other people who answered this question!

Dear Sir. When you talk about garu-kamma. Does it include killing as in murder or having performed certain actions that have caused a parent to kill themselves, say due to Shame for instance. @yuttadhammo

@user3743672 that might be better asked as a separate question, rather then in the comments


text:
What are all the bhawana (meditation) methods in Buddhism?
There are two types of meditations described as "Samatha" and "Vipassana"
I have heard that there are several types of samatha bhawana (40 kamatahan). Can you please elaborate this based on Theravada Buddhism

Possible duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2014/methods-for-reaching-jhana/2039#2039

As answered here, the forty samatha meditation objects are:
1-10: The Kasinas
These all lead to the four jhānas; they are practised by creating a disk and focusing on it, while repeating, e.g., "earth, earth..."
1. Earth
2. Water
3. Fire
4. Air
5. Blue
6. Yellow
7. Red
8. White
9. Light
10. Space
11-20: Foulness
These lead to the first jhāna; they are practised by contemplating a corpse in various states of decay
11. Bloated
12. Livid
13. Festering
14. Cut Up
15. The Gnawed
16. Scattered
17. Hacked and Scattered
18. Bleeding
19. Worm-infested
20. a Skeleton
21-30: Recollections
Body and Breathing bring jhāna (body only brings the first jhāna, breath brings all four); the other eight bring only access concentration; they are cultivated by reflecting on the object, e.g. "Buddha, Buddha"
21. Buddha
22. Dhamma
23. Sangha
24. Morality
25. Generosity
26. Angels
27. Death
28. Body
29. Breathing
30. Peace
31-34: The Divine Abidings
The first three bring about the first three jhānas; the fourth brings about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by taking beings as an object, e.g. "May all beings be happy"
31. Love
32. Compassion
33. Joy
34. Equanimity
35-38: The Immaterial States
These bring about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by using the fourth jhāna as a base, then expanding and refining the object
35. Limitless Space
36. Limitless Consciousness
37. Nothingness
38. Neither Perception Nor Non-perception
39. Perception of Repulsiveness in Nutriment
This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by reflecting on food as one collects and eats it.
40. Defining of The Elements
This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by breaking the body up into the four elements.
All forty meditation subjects are described and taught in detail in the Visuddhimagga; highly recommended for those interested.


text:
Theravada buddhism and Mahayana buddhism
What are the main differences in theravada and mahayana buddhism?

I'd love to know as well. It seems they agree on the main points. So perhaps I'm missing something?

The main difference I'm aware of is that the Therevada school is focused on seeking Enlightenment for the individual. The Mahayana school is focused on seeking Enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.
If I remember correctly, for those who believe in the literal Western interpretation of reincarnation, according to the Therevada school, when someone attains Enlightenment they will cease worldly rebirth. Alternatively, the Mahayana school believes that a fully-awakened buddha can choose to be reborn, and even choose their rebirths.
From my understanding, there are a lot of other differences--many of them relating to monastic life.

Theravada school is focused on getting each individual to attain enlightenment as soon as possible and helping others to do the same.