text:
In Buddhism Can Devas do Something For Us?
My mother is a christian woman but has strong traditional roots in voodooism and ancestral worship.My question is,Is it possible for human beings to invoke a deva/gods/territorial spirits(nagas etc) to do our bidding? In a Buddhist context Can a Deva help a human being? Is there such a story in the suttas.Why would a Deva help a human being? According to my mother a particular deva helps us because he was our family/relative/ancestor.Is this compatible with Buddhist Beliefs?

In Buddhist scriptures, devas are described as powerful beings who often interact with humans. So assuming devas are real, they can surely hinder or help humans in a material way. What no being can ever do is force or hinder another's spiritual path. There we are truly alone. Even Mara can only tempt beings to stray from the skillful path but can never succeed as long as we can see through its illusions.

Like a friend or even an animal (some cases animals have help people) can help us there are instances where beings in other planes can help us. This includes Devas. Again like a friend or animal they may be limited in their ability including due to the plane they are in.

Yes they can.
If one does good, particular "higher" beings (including Buddhas) can more easily help that being (they are attracted to the good karma).
If one does evil, asuras can more easily haunt that being (they are attracted to the evil karma).
There are many other properties to them that are completely irrelevant to the Buddhist project (see Noble Truths) and the importance of meditation and attainment within our extremely fortuitous but also extremely brief life-time...
But to answer your last question... yes it is compatible but also remember that Hindus also believe in this stuff. The difference with Buddhism from all (inferior) traditions is  there exists Buddhahood for the sake of all beings and the Three Trainings and this has little to do with over-concern for worldly matters (e.g. Mythbusters and other obsessions with paranormal phenomena). The Buddha himself said this and so did Confucius (who had Enlightenment).
To satisfy your curiousity though, devas are mentioned throughout the scriptures and the Buddha mentions his experiences with them in vivid detail.
The following is a taste of the first half of "The Mind Experiment" with excerpts from respective suttas:

The “devas” (collective name for heavenly beings) are not above men or
  outside the world, not transcendent but immanent, worldly beings. They
  all have distinct features and occupy certain positions in a vast
  hierarchy of levels, each heaven providing specific qualities of life
  and environment, body and consciousness. There is a Lord God in most
  realms but no one is in charge of the whole; there is no super lord,
  no unique and supreme ruler of the universe, no divine creator of all
  and everything.
Some Gods believe themselves to be eternal and almighty because of the
  exceptional qualities of their existence – such as an extremely long
  lifespan, unwavering happiness, extensive presence, power, and
  knowledge – which makes it difficult for them to “see things as they
  are” (impermanent, suffering, non-self, empty; Chapter 1). They enjoy
  such bliss and brilliance that it is difficult for them to realize
  that all beings are, in essence, equal; that their godly state is just
  a matter of natural and temporal retribution, the result of their own
  excellent karma, and that they too are subject to the universal law of
  causality, to suffering and frustration when their karma runs out.
  They experience decay, death and rebirth (in a lower plane). By
  themselves they do not discern ultimate truth, but when they did upon
  hearing the Buddha’s teaching, “they beat their breasts and wept” (AN
  ii 33).
Gods are finite because they exist. They are delimited and conditioned
  by their own thusness, by the very attributes and properties
  (skandhas) that make them divine. They are “imprisoned in their
  person” (SN iii 85). Although none of them are responsible for the
  world or for other beings, they do have more-than-human powers. Their
  destiny highly exceeds our human one, because they have been much
  better than we have been; it is their excellent karma that took them
  there. Therefore we should emulate them for the moral and spiritual
  qualities that earned them such splendid existence. As religions know,
  they can appear on earth and interact with humans, they can protect us
  and intervene on our behalf; they are affected by our prayers, which
  they can answer insofar as [1] their power extends to us, and [2] we
  have the spiritual capacity and karmic affinity to receive their help.
  But there is not much they can do to alter man’s destiny or their own.
Gods and heavens are part of and evolve within the whole of existence,
  or they would not exist. They are no exception to the general rule but
  subject to the universal process of origination-cessation just like
  the rest of us, ruled by cause and effect. They evolve according to
  the natural law and order of the universe (Dharma). Heavens and hells,
  gods and angels, spirits and demons are not a matter of mythology but
  of cosmology.
There is much more to reality than what our senses and brain register.
  From the human level, the pure worlds above are perceived when the
  mind ascends in pure concentration (dhyana-samadhi). “sursum corda” –
  lift up your hearts – is to be taken literally. To “contemplate God in
  Heaven” has been the main purpose of all religious exercise: to
  cultivate a supernatural awareness through prayer, moral excellence
  and mental purity, single-minded faith and contemplation. That means
  essentially to develop dhyana-concentration, to shut out the world of
  the senses, to silence the distraction of thought, to rise above this
  earthly-bodily dimension and “unite with Heaven.”
At times when spiritual cultivation was more developed, gods and
  heavens were a natural part of life, as can be seen in the traditions
  of Greco-Roman culture, Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Daoism,
  and other religions. All of these offer observations that match one or
  more aspects of the heavenly reality as it has been elucidated in
  Buddhism. The Buddha’s omniscience covered the whole of reality, and
  his revelations about gods and heavens have been, and can always be,
  corroborated by people with adequate samadhi power. There is nothing
  exclusively Buddhist about it; any spiritual adept can discern the
  superstructure of the universe.
The Buddha once described a heavenly voyage undertaken by one of his
  followers, to whom “the thought occurred: “I wonder where the four
  great elements—earth, water, fire, and air—cease without remainder”
  (in other words, “what is beyond the physical universe”). And that
  brother attained to such a state of mental concentration that the way
  to the deva-realms appeared before him.” After having gone through the
  consecutive realms of the lower heavens and having put his question to
  the gods there (who referred him each time to a higher instance), “he
  became so absorbed in concentration that the way to the Brahma-world
  appeared before his mind thus pacified. He went to the gods of
  Brahma’s Assembly . . .  then the Great Brahma himself appeared . . .
  and finally, as swiftly as a strong man flexes his arm, he vanished
  from the Brahma world and appeared in my presence” (DN i 215-222).
  The Buddha himself proceeded likewise. Once asked about the
  whereabouts of a group of his followers who had recently died, “he sat
  down, thinking over, considering and concentrating his whole mind on
  the question of them, making a resolve: I will find their future,
  their fate after this life, whatever it is. And then he perceived the
  destiny of each one of them. In the evening, after he emerged from
  meditation, looking bright and shining . . .  [the Buddha said:] ‘Then
  an invisible spirit made himself known . . . and appeared himself
  before me, a splendid presence’.” It was the spirit of a former king
  who explained his rebirth among gods as a king of non-humans, who now
  wanted to engage on the path of enlightenment and was asking the
  Buddha for advice. (DN ii 204)
On several occasions the Buddha described in detail the rebirths of
  disciples who were recently deceased, also mentioning their actual
  status on the path of spiritual realization. He advised his students
  to see this for themselves and explained a manner of self-inspection,
  like looking in a mirror, to discern clearly one’s future and make
  sure that: “I have destroyed hell, animal-rebirth, ghost-realm, evil
  fates, and sorry states. I am a Stream-enterer (first stage of the
  path), incapable of falling back into states of woe, certain of
  attaining Nirvana.” (DN ii 92-94) When he spoke about rebirth, he
  frequently warned against being reborn in the “descents” and “states
  of woe,” among animals, afflicted spirits and miserable ghosts, or
  worst of all, in one of the hells.

That would be shirk , so how would you reconcile that with Islam?


text:
Buddhist (Theravada) cure for "Insecurity"?
While the Pali scriptures address (or at least reference) a number of specific sufferings that a human being can be subject to (Jealousy, Anger, Fear, etc.), do any of the teachings deal with the specific suffering of Insecurity (and how to overcome it)?  Meaning a lack of self-confidence, usually caused by the mind making itself subject to fears and illusions that creep in and which it lacks the strength to banish or prevent in the first place.

1.One of the ways to deal with anxiety,insecurity or lack of self confidence is by developing Sila (Morality,Integrity,Virtue,Ethics).
"Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous person through his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans, householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."
— DN 16*
2.Anxiety comes from fear and fear comes from aversion,a way to counter act aversion is by practicing metta bhavana (to yourself First,make sure you spend a lot of time on yourself,lack of self confidence masks self hatred).
3.Counteract Fear by developing one of the five spiritual faculties,Faith.Take refuge in the Triple Gem,Take refuge in the Present Moment.Embrace the present moment.Anxious or not.Don't fight it or get upset that you got anxious.This just makes it worse.Just note it.Anxiety.Be present for it.Hold it in Awareness and compassion.Yes you might feel worse or uncomfortable but that's okay.You can note.Uncomfortable.No matter what arises due to insecurity to anxiety you can always Note.Which means there is something bigger than anxiety and that is Mindfulness.And soo you will see it changes.So have faith in the Buddha's teaching,put it to practice and see for yourself.

All of this answer is good, but point 3 is especially well-said. It reminds me of "The Litany Against Fear" from Dune. Turning to face fears is enormously powerful. "There is something bigger than anxiety and that is Mindfulness." Wow.

Not sure in which sutta, but I remember Buddha having been asked a similar question, about timidity, I think in Anguttara Nikaya.
His answer was, basically, that confidence comes from skill. If one is well-learned and well-trained at whatever s/he is doing, one tends to be more confident than an incompetent bumbler. The examples of skills Buddha gave were speaking, manners (posture/walking/standing/sitting), and knowledge of Dharma (he was talking about bhikkhu elders being confident at teaching Dharma, if I remember correctly).
Chogyam Trungpa compared Buddhist training to taming a gorilla. The first stage is to learn to move around without breaking stuff and hurting oneself and people. In Trungpa's interpretation, this is essentially what Sila (Shila) is, a practice of discipline, or warrior-like simplicity, cultivation of lifestyle opposite to indulging. This matures into efficient action devoid of any unnecessary/unproductive wavering.
From my own experience I can add, regular meditation helps tremendously to reduce the pathological kinds of self-reflection.

I agree with the commenters above and I want to add that insecurity is a state of mind and thus it has the properties of anicca (impermanence), anatta (insubstantiality) and dukkha (causing suffering).
The practice of vipassana trains us to see our states of mind as they arise and cease and not to cling to them. Once we learn to let them go, we realise they are not "me", they are not "mine": we simply witness the ups and downs of the mind without identifying with them and without getting upset with them.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How is the new intelligence equation practically (freedom) related to Buddhism?
This 10 minute TED video by Alex Wissner talks about a new theory of intelligence, which defines intelligence as

intelligence is a force ... that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action

How is this related to goal of Buddhism? By this definition is Buddhist practice very intelligent?

"something that takes control of the present to enable greater control of future possibilities". This is Mindfulness. By being Mindful of the present moment.One has greater control of the action that follows.
How is this related to goal of Buddhism?
The goal of Buddhism is Nibbanna.You realise it through practicing the Eight Noble Path in which Right Mindfulness is a component.Have you heard of the karma that ends all karma. Basically by following the Eight Noble Path we are creating the right conditions,the right karma,to stop suffering.By being mindful we can takes control of the present to enable greater control of future possibilities (Happiness,Nibbanna) Being mindful stops you from acting subconsciously (in ignorance) or out of deeply ingrained habits and tendencies that keep you in samsara.
By this definition is Buddhist practice very intelligent?
Yes.

Well no, maybe not: maybe the new equation is just more samsara.
The phrase "acting so as to maximize future freedom of action" could be interpreted to mean things like:

Become rich
Become politically powerful
Minimize your prior obligations which impede your freedom of action

That third sounds like it might be Buddhist, if it means, "people without attachments can do more" (e.g. if they don't have family obligations to hold them back) ... but then again consider the Vinaya rules, which dictate limits on what people are able (allowed) to do.
Buddhism isn't entirely about becoming powerful ("future freedom of action") ... it's more to do with "self-control" and freedom (liberation) from suffering.
The descriptions of "Entropica" show I think that it's not intended as a description of mainstream Buddhism:

By the same token, Entropica is broadly applicable to problems in autonomous defense, logistics and transportation.
Finally, here we see Entropica spontaneously discovering and executing a buy-low, sell-high strategy on a simulated range traded stock, successfully growing assets under management exponentially.

On the other hand, the "Entropica" model could be interpreted to mean "don't have a limited view of self, form new connections" ... so I suppose it depends on how you interpret the metaphor

Yeah you're right that I think the Entropica model is designed to explain worldly things but it wouldn't be the first time that a worldly thing can be hijacked to improve  spiritual practice... The fact that money and power can help but also hold back is actually already a part of the interpretive Buddhist machine as the Eight Vicissitudes or the Anussati.. Thus a person who realizes the benefits of Nirvana and Buddahood, looking to a point in time Very Very Far, far beyond the body that can hold wealth, power, and pleasure would cultive them only to ensure more time.. to Practice.

The Buddhist goal is to escape self-imposed suffering and ultimately to escape forced birth-and-death through the process of the Three Trainings.
This is related to Alex Wissner's theory of intelligence in the same manner: restrict/choose present actions in order to maximize future options.
When one attains bodhi one is able to be free from forced rebirth. Thus, once Awakened, the bodhisattva/Buddha then exercises their compassionate power and constantly uses their nirmanakaya (aspect of Trikaya) to help beings throughout the infinite galaxies as described by Buddha (and Taoists).
Thus, by Alex Wissner's definition of intelligence, Buddhist training is the most intelligent behavior any being can possibly take, especially those of us that are trapped in self-imposed suffering (dukkha) and the process of forced birth-and-death.

intelligence is a force ... that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action

It sounds like "intelligence" craves for an image called "freedom of action in the future". Buddhism is very different: meditation is a practice to free people from suffering.
He also says that intelligence is goal-seeking and control-grabbing. I think that Buddhism doesn't mean to control someone's own life, it's more about "behaving in a way that suffering is not produced". Control is subjectively pervaded with attachment and aversion. It's subtle. How can someone change his/her own behavior without being attached to some mind states and not being averse to others?
And also, someone can think that enlightenment is a goal, but seeing it like this is a pitfall. A goal implies expectation, or anticipation of the future, only more samkara. How someone can seek nirvana without imagining it in the future?
But there is a lot of intelligent people clinging on samsara.

By this definition is Buddhist practice very intelligent?

No, because in this definition intelligence implies suffering.
By the way, in Buddhism, intelligence could be understood differently.

Good point that intelligence is goal-seeking and control-grabbing.. In the case of Buddhism though it is still control-grabbing... taking control of your own life so that you do not remain the hell of samsara... by controlling one's own mind, efforts, and life to align with the Eightfold path.
Of course the same quality (seeking control) is used by most people to create more suffering and trying to control things that aren't even theirs to control, etc.

I think that Buddhism doesn't mean to control someone's own life, it's more about changing behaviors that produce suffering. Control is subjectively pervaded with attachment and aversion. It's subtle. And also, someone can think that enlightenment is a goal, but seeing it like this is a pitfall. Because a goal implies expectation, or anticipation of the future, only more samkara. I'm adding this to the answer.

True. The buddha did say that one has to have a strong desire for enlightenment and then get rid of even that desire (eventually). If one does that last part too soon though it is a grave mistake.

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


text:
Why is Zen/Chan thought to be more related to Buddhism than to Taoism?
According to the book The Tao of Zen, Zen/Chan is esentially a form of Taoism. This makes sense to me, as it's hard to understand what is the common ground between the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the other Mahayana traditions.
However, this is not a predominant opinion about the origins of Zen. I understand that it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in The Tao of Zen?

Zen teachers still refer to buddhist doctrine: four noble truths, noble eightfold path, karma, etc. And they still refer to buddhist texts, though mostly, prajnaparamita. But that is a personal observation, not a historical/scholar one.

When Buddhism came to China, Daoists saw it as an external confirmation of their own philosophies. So to some extent Zen arose as a syncretism between Buddhism and Daoism... according to a course I took in university.

the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the
  other Mahayana traditions

Are we talking about style? Yes, the records of the Zen masters resemble the style of the Zhuangzi more than they resemble the style of the Avatamsaka Sutra. But we should be more interested in content when evaluating where a tradition belongs. - The Sutras are written in a highly intricate, metaphorical language. Like the Zen master Bassui said: "Before we can read the Sutras, we have to open the mind that can read them." The Sutras are addressing a reality that is sometimes not available to an unenlightened mind.

it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in The Tao of Zen?

Every scholarly book written on the origin of Zen is a counter-argument.
Let's look at a few salient points - off the top of my head:
1) The Zen school was not called that at first. It was known as the "Buddha-Mind School" and the Zen masters were referred to as "the Lankavatara Masters":

In its beginnings in China, Zen primarily referred to the Mahāyāna
  sūtras and especially to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. As a result, early
  masters of the Zen tradition were referred to as "Laṅkāvatāra
  masters". In other early texts, the school that would later become known as Zen is sometimes even referred to as simply the "Laṅkāvatāra school" (Ch. 楞伽宗, Léngqié Zōng). Accounts recording the history of this early period are to
  be found in Records of the Laṅkāvatāra Masters (Ch. 楞伽師資記, Léngqié
  Shīzī Jì).

(cf. Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005-A), Zen Buddhism: A History. Volume 1: India and China, World Wisdom Books, ISBN 978-0-941532-89-1 )
The whole school was called after a specific sutra, named the  Laṅkāvatāra.
The First Patriarch of Zen is said to have handed this sutra to the Second Patriarch as containing the essentials of the school teachings.
If you study that Sutra closely, you will realize that it has all the essential teachings of Zen, and since it predates Zen, it is only reasonable to conclude it is the source. The main idea there is that "mind is buddha", that it all comes down to the mind of the sentient being; that everything is a projection of the One Mind (which is also what Huangbo says verbatim).
2) The Sixth Patriarch in the Platform Scripture says quite explicitly that to practice Zen, one has to study and recite the Diamond Sutra. Why does he single out that sutra and not the Zhuangzi or the Daodejing?
3) All the Zen masters used Mahayana Buddhist language and terminology: samsara, nirvana, bodhisattva, tathagata, etc. compare with how often they use terms such as qi, yin/yang, Heaven (in the Taoist sense), etc. It's not even up for debate. They overwhelmingly use Buddhist language.
4) They were all Buddhist monks, with Buddhist robes, shaved heads, etc. I mean, this is an obvious fact. Why stay in a Buddhist monastery if you're a Taoist?
5) All they say is traceable back to Mahayana Philosophy. Everything. The One Mind, transcending samsara, non-duality between samsara and nirvana, mind being buddha, truth being beyond language, silence as a teaching etc. Even the dismissal of Sutras is ultimately traceable back to the Sutras!
There's nothing original in the ideas of the Chan school:

There is nothing unique about Ch'an doctrine; it is an eclectic form
  of Mahayana philosophy. So there is no contradiction involved in a
  tradition of meditation practice co-existing with the sectarian
  doctrines of the various sects of Chinese Buddhism. Masters whose
  names appear in the succession-lists of both Ch'an and another
  sectarian tradition would simply be both dharma- and dhyana-masters in
  their respective monasteries.

Charles W. Swain, The Emergence Of Ch'an Buddhism, Chung- Hwa Buddhist Journal vol.2/Oct, 1988 P.391-399

In fact, if there's anything original, it's the style. If there's anything that cannot be traced back to Indian Mahayana - is exactly the style, the form their upaya takes, and not their doctrines, not their insights.
But why call that style "Taoist" and not instead call it "Chinese"? Perhaps there's some common source both Chan and Taoism are drawing from, and that has more to do with the Chinese character, that manifests there as abrupt and direct? What makes more sense instead is that Buddhism is adaptable, and so it takes many forms depending on the country and the spirit of the country where it takes root.

I think that the points 3 and 4 are not needed, as they are about the form, and nobody denies that Zen is Buddhist in form. Other points refer to the content, and that's exactly the kind of answer I wanted.

I think that this kind of thinking is rather superficial. The essence of Zen is the teaching that all beings possess a Buddha nature, and that by seeing into one's true nature one attains enlightenment. None of this is a part of Daoism.
In addition, a lot of the similarities between the two are also found in Buddhist Sutras. For example, the extensive use of paradoxical language to cut through conceptual thinking is found in the Diamond Sutra and many other Buddhist texts, not just in Daoist texts like the Dao De Jing, and they are understood in very different ways as well.

This suggestion that Zen/Chan is Taoism tends to come from the Taoists/Chinese nationalists themselves rather than any real Chan teachings. I am from a Chinese Buddhist school of Chan lineage. Before becoming a practicing Buddhist I dabbled in self study of Taoist teachings.
Since historical times, Chinese civilization due to it's great power with respect to it's surrounding neighbors has always carry a deep conceit in their cultural superiority. This naturally extends into the field of philosophy and religions.
The truth is Buddhism is much much deeper than Taoism. Taoism is fairly enlightened no doubt, especially compared to some very unenlightened behaviors from monotheistic religions. But Taoism does not reach the Four Noble Truths, and does not practice the Eightfold Noble Path. Hence the depth of their wisdom is comparable to other Indian religious spiritual traditions such as Hinduism. But it is not at the level of Buddhism.
In any case, the Taoists out of conceit, tend to claim superiority over Buddhism without actually understanding it. They have even historically claimed that Buddha was Laozi, and even created scriptures to assert this narrative. Essentially they are appealing to Chinese nationalism to maintain support.

The story unfolds in China as Buddhism appears on the scene and is
  accepted by the Chinese population as a “simplified version of Taoism”
  that the Western barbarians (subcontinent Indians and Central Asians,
  e.g. Tibetans, et al.) could understand.

This is not to say Taoism is bad. There are many good things about Taoism. Their contribution to Traditional Chinese Medicine is probably one of the most important contribution. But to claim that Chan Buddhism is a form of Taoism is to give Taoism far too much credit.

Taoism and Buddhism go hand-in-hand. Taoism is largely about living in balance with existence, which is a manifestation of the middle way. As someone said, Buddhism came as something of an external confirmation of Taoism.

Truth is truth. Buddhism and Taoism are the same in the end, no matter what tradition you come from.

Hi Cameron and welcome to Buddhism SE. A good way to increase quality of an answer is to add a reference or source. Here, you can find more info on how to write  good answer.

Source is the source. When operating from here one merely adapts impersonally to potential. There may be a continuation of practices but the essence of it remains consistent. It can't be any other way.

Buddhism itself is not the same thing between different schools even though there are major similarities and disagreements. So i think your answer may be a bit Opinion based. @Cameron

My answer did not disagree with your statement. They are different and the same in the end. No opinions there.

@Cameron , I think I understand your comment. Do you agree if I could illustrate it with this zen saying: "If you don't understand the reality/truth, everything is as it is. If you do understand the reality/truth, everything is as it is". Do you feel it's in the same vein as your "Truth is truth" ?

Taoism is innately Chinese and predates Buddhism by at least one thousand years. The Tao Te Ching is attributed to Lao Tze (500 BC) and Zen Buddhism to Tamo (5th century). Early Taoism resembles ancient nature worship and the religious practices of many other early societies. Taoism and Buddhism merged in peoples' minds much later. Tao Tze and Tamo (and even Lao Tze's student, Confucius) were considered one old, wise teacher.

So to add to what Cameron to saying just so others might be cautious too, we'll in buddha dharma view is of utmost importance. The goal is to get beyond any view but it is very essential. What Cameron is echoing is in my view a fairly common modern misconception based on want to be politically correct and many other reasons perhaps. Say one believes killing animals in the name of God is fine which is true in many religions. From a buddha dharma perspective that will take you away from enlightenment. So clearly all beliefs,  all opinions,  all religions are not the same. To give nor  example say in a religion people believe that killing 100 men in one life will lead to liberation. Now would you Cameron say that that is also  a Buddhist view and that both will lead to the same goal?
I hope not. If that is true then you are immediately accepting all beliefs views are not the same and have different consequences. The question then is what views lead to what more importantly what view leads to Buddhist enlightenment. The word enlightenment is not important, what matters is if different views and practices lead to the same age that buddha talked about. And to be clear buddha himself again and again mentioned how his reaching is different from any other. For example he differentiated his teaching even from one of the practices which focused on jhanas merely.
Coming back to zen Methexis had an amazing anwer there.  Wow.  Thanks. Yes there are many non Buddhists  who keep saying it's the same thing because they are ignorant of Buddha's teachings and they are I guess insecured about their own. If it was the same thing there would be some authentic Buddhist master say who recited Bhagavat Gita or Quran but nope. Only self declared unverified Buddhist teachers do that. And even they have not been many as once you start reading the idea of no Self it is different than any other spiritual system and against the most basic belief that we have.  That is why it is called spontaneous grasping of self.

How does this answer the question which is: "Why is Zen/Chan thought to be more related to Buddhism than to Taoism?". The answer is commenting on other answers and not addressing the main question.

It seems to me that most of these 'answers' are based on personal experience, and an attachment to that. If one is shown a great path, one often thinks that it is the only true path, and that others are just lesser, or corrupted versions of that true path.
There are many paths up the mountain :)
In reference to Taoist/Buddhist origins of Zen etc.. This is a very difficult one to answer, verifiable evidence is very hard to find from these earlier eras, especially when one considers the above, and human nature, and our ego.
Buddhist and Taoist teachings have overlapped in many ways over the centuries, and much of Taoist teachings are misunderstood, and often not known, Taoist have historically tended to be  'retiring' by nature. The situation we have now, is that it is hard to be certain what is just Buddhist and what is just Taoist, there is a great deal of overlap, which is not surprising considering the history of both in China (for instance).
My own personal experience/understanding, having been a student of both Buddhist and Taoist teachers, the similarities are more common than the differences, especially in regard to the path(s) to enlightenment. The differences seem superficial, the core teaching is very similar, and may well be the same way. True or not, they both contain a way to enlightenment, apparently :)
Until we have more proof/evidence of the various claims and counterclaims, it is a moot point. It is also a distraction what is nothing other than an academic discussion, it isn't the path itself, however interesting it is, and it is.
It's an interesting discussion but until we have proof one way or the other, but I'm not holding my breath ;)


text:
Were the Buddha's earliest followers bhikkhus?
What is the proper name for the Buddha's earliest followers such as Ananda and Sariputta - the ones that followed the Buddha during his lifetime. Would the term be bhikkhu and  bhikkhuni or does this only apply to settled monastics?

The earliest records we have refer to Ānanda in many ways. But bhikkhu is one of them. For example in the Mahāpadāna Sutta we find

Mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etarahi ānando nāma bhikkhu upaṭṭhāko ahosi aggupaṭṭhāko.
  A bhikkhu called Ānanda, monks, was our servant, the best of servants.

Similarly in the Kalyaṇamitta Sutta (SN i.87)

Atha kho, mahārāja, ānando bhikkhu yenāhaṃ tenupasaṅkami
  Then, your Majesty, I approached the bhikkhu Ānanda...

However he is frequently referred to as āyasmā ānando roughly Elder Ānanda. His ordination as a bhikkhu was probably fairly conventional. It's not recounted in full. But at least twice his preceptor (upajjhāya) is mentioned, e.g.

Tena kho pana samayena āyasmato ānandassa upajjhāyo āyasmā belaṭṭhasīso araññe viharati.  (Vin 4.86)
  At that time Belaṭṭhaṣīso, the preceptor of Ānanda, was living in the wilderness.

Sāriputta's ordination was a bit less convention. He was converted by Assaji and already a stream-entrant when he met the Buddha. Curiously I cannot find any evidence of Sāriputta being called a bhikkhu in Pāḷi.
In some discourses that seem to be early the Buddha ordains men by saying ehi bhikkhu "come monk", but this was soon replaced by the more formal two stage ordination process.
On the whole I think bhikkhu and bhikkhunī are fine. They really refer to a lifestyle rather than being an ecclesiastical title.

There are 4

Bhikkhu - Male monk
Bhikkhuni - Female nun
Upasaka - Lay male follower
Upasika - Lay female follower

Also note that in the Suttas all of the above are referred as Bhikkhus in addressing.

In Maha-parinibbana Sutta, for example, they're referred to as "bhikkhus" and "Venerable".
In this translation it's "monks" and "Venerable".
Wikipedia says that,

Bhikkhu literally means "beggar" or "one who lives by alms".

The 'ordained' monastics and the Vinaya existed (were created) during the Buddha's lifetime.


text:
The importance of NOW
Why this (and only this) moment is the exclusive possibility to see things as they really are?

The future is only just an imagination at best as it has not happened and the past is only an memory. You cannot see the in details anything other than what you remember or things yet to unfold.
So present moment is what you can study to get a understanding of reality at the subtlest level.

Is this answer opinion?  Where in the canon, sutra, or scripture is this supported?  Please cite your references.

From the Diamond Sutra, Chapter 18, speaking to Subhūti, the Buddha imparts,

...I know the mind of every sentient being in all the host of universes, regardless of any modes of thought, conceptions or tendencies. For all modes, conceptions and tendencies of thought are not mind. And yet they are called 'mind'. Why? It is impossible to retain a past thought, to seize a future thought, and even to hold onto a present thought.

This insight connects directly to clinging and attachment, which in turn, connects to dukkha (suffering; dissatisfaction with the way things are, were, or will be).
From Samyutta Nikaya LVI 11 (translations vary),

The First Noble Truth with its three aspects is: "There is suffering, dukkha. Dukkha should be understood. Dukkha has been understood."

Loosely, the Pali word, dukkha, means "incapable of satisfying" or "not able to bear or withstand anything": always changing, incapable of truly fulfilling us or making us happy.
This is a very skilful teaching because it is expressed in a simple formula which is easy to remember, and it also applies to everything that you can possibly experience or do or think concerning the past, the present or the future.
The past is a construct of a clinging mind attached to what was.  The future is a clinging construct of mind attached to fantastic possibility.  The present moment is all that is real and actionable.
Put another way, one can not act in the past or future.  One can only act in the now (present).  Attempting to act in a past or future moment ("coulda", "woulda", "shoulda") is not Samma (to slightly abuse pali) -- meaning 'not proper', 'not whole', 'not thorough', 'not integral', 'not complete' and/or 'not perfect.'  And thus, out of step with the Eight-Fold Path.

Great post. As one relinquishes attachment towards the ultimate end, one moves closer to now- pure unsullied experience. I've always imagined that highly advanced practitioners might even 'process' events closer to now, ie faster, but I have no science for that. I have a feeling we may eventually see science prove meditation has this type of effect though.

Welcome to the site. I like this answer. Especially the past, present, future-part. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like.


text:
Prostration and attachment to rites and rituals
Why isn't prostration considered as a rite or a ritual in the sense of silabbata paramasa (one of the fetters that had to be abandoned to become a stream-enterer)?
I wonder how this practice can contribute to insight especially when prostration is done mechanically (as practiced around Buddhist pagodas in Birma; Sri Lanka and Thailand)?

I wonder how this practice can contribute to insight especially when prostration is done mechanically (as practiced around Buddhist pagodas in Birma; Sri Lanka and Thailand)?
Prostrations is done to Revere.
Reverence is an act of merit->Merit brings happiness->Happiness brings Tranquility (Samadhi)->Samadhi brings Insight.
Mind influences the Body, but the body also influences the mind.We can feel happy and smile or we can smile then feel happy.The body has a huge impact on the mind.When we stand up straight we tend to feel more confident.
It is possible to do prostration mechanically but it will leave an imprint in your mind and psyche to not behave in a way that shows irreverence.For example,I had a habit of saying a prayer mechanically before dinner,and even when i went to someone else's house and was mindless for most of the day by the time it was dinner time i'd kind of snap out of it and became mindful of the food and say a quick prayer for it.So it's like a force of habit.In this case a good habit.

Preforming a ceremonial act isn't the same thing as clinging to rites and rituals. Clinging to rites and rituals specifically means that you think that some ceremonial action has some sort of power in it that can take you to enlightenment.

Any right or ritual does make Sankara / Karma positive or negative. Eradicating Sankara is the way out of misery hence any practice which does not eradicate Sankara is not conducive to get out of misery.
You should understand the formation of Sankara and eradicate it. Formation of Sankara is linked to sensations. When it passes away subtle sensations arise. Likewise you can see rights and rituals cause formations.
But until you get there some attachments to keep you on track and strengthen your faith is no harm.

This answer assumes that eradicating Sankara is the only way out of misery.


text:
Can thoughts materialize?
Many people believe that their good or bad thoughts can materialize in the future. So some people try to be always in good mood and think positively. Others are not so happy and just try not to think about bad things too often to prevent them from happening. And finally there are large groups of people that pray to some god. Can thoughts of all these people materialize into a real events, creatures, things? At least sometimes?

In Mahayana, vows are considered to be more powerful and efficacious that mundane statements.  Also, mindfulness, in that context, such as being mindful of a Buddha or Pure land, leads to effects, at least after life. Mantrayana, is essentially, statements for this worldly benefit.

Perhaps a better title might be "does positive thinking create a positive future?"

Many people believe that their good or bad thoughts can materialize in the future.
Yes.In the Dhammapada it says The Mind is the forerunner of all things. Everything begins in the mind.From the most subtlest intentions to thoughts.
So some people try to be always in good mood and think positively.
When you think good thoughts,you tend to feel good,you tend to do good,and you create good,and enjoy the fruits of your goodness.But this does not happen linearly.So you may think positive but still struggle with depression due to the bad thoughts you have ruminated about in the past.Only because you don't see the results right away doesn't mean nothing's happening.
Also it's very important to define good thoughts.Good thoughts refers to thoughts that are skillful or wholesome.Not just thoughts that feels good.As it is possible to have positive thinking and be delusional at the same time.And it is possible to think of unwholesome things that feel good but brings suffering.
Others are not so happy and just try not to think about bad things too often to prevent them from happening.
To think that by "not thinking about it" they can prevent bad things from happening is slightly delusional.Depends on one's karma.If the fruit of a bad karma ripens due to to the right conditions then ... no amount of "not thinking about it" will stop it.Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean, nor by entering into mountain clefts, nowhere in the world is there a place where one may escape from the results of evil deeds.-Dhammapada
And finally there are large groups of people that pray to some god.
It all depends on the individual themselves.Whether they pray to a God or not the key that makes these thoughts materialize is their intentions,their karma,their actions.
Can thoughts of all these people materialize into a real events, creatures, things? At least sometimes?
Yes thoughts can materialize because of cause and effect.But they are governed by certain laws.Law of gravity,law of karma,law of nature etc and also our own actions and in actions.We can wish for a good meal,but if we don't get up and make it and no one comes by and makes it for us then we're not going to have one.

Many people believe that their good or bad thoughts can materialize in
  the future

Yes, this is called Kamma. Good thoughts have the potential to cause good consequences. Bad thoughts have the potential to cause bad consequences.
But the Buddhist way of identifying a good/bad thoughts has nothing to do with positive/negative thinking.
If a thought is tainted with craving, aversion and ignorance, it is a bad thought. If not, it is a good thought.
ex: Going after a mirage, thinking that it's a real stream of water can be a positive thought, if you really believe in it. But it's not going to bring intended results. Thinking that slaughtering animals and offering them to a god/demon will result in a good harvest can be a positive thought. But it is a bad thought according to Buddhism. Thinking that there's an all loving, all governing god who's going to save you from suffering can be a positive thought. But it is a bad thought according to Buddhism. Thinking about impermanence, suffering can be taken as negative thinking. But they are good thoughts according to Buddhism.
All bad thoughts have the potential to give repercussions. But not all good thoughts give future results. Ex: the thoughts of enlightened being are called Kiriya citta. You could call them neutral, but they are good since they don't cause harm.

So some people try to be always in good mood and think positively.
  Others are not so happy and just try not to think about bad things too
  often to prevent them from happening.

This is not possible! Bad and good things happen because of causes. If the causes are not present for something to happen, you simply can't make it happen, regardless of your mood.
To take the same example, just because you pray to a god, you won't get the things you pray for. There should be someone listening, who is in a position to give you what you want. And that being should decide to help in the way you want.

Excellent answer!

I think yes: "at least sometimes".
Imagine if you're a salesperson, trying to sell something -- it will help to be cheerful and confident, i.e. people are more likely to want to buy from you ... and you're more likely to be willing to try (and try again after each failure).
But the "thoughts" are not enough -- e.g. I suppose that whether you're a successful salesperson would also depend on what you're selling, what the customer needs, whether they afford it, etc.
There's a sutta that might be relevant, SN 42.6 -- you can't make a boulder float on a lake just by praying.
Although "state of mind" is relevant generally, see e.g. Mental factors (Buddhism).
But what you're describing might be magical thinking, which maybe isn't Buddhist.
But I think that part of the training of modern professional/trained athletes is to imagine themselves winning -- e.g. to imagine and re-imagine in detail, to foresee, to plan, what it feels like and the various details of what a body does, to run 100 meters in 9.8 seconds. That imagination is a kind of planning for the future. That's not exactly "magical" though (e.g. they'd do it as well as, not instead of, physical training) -- and some Buddhist practices (e.g. bhavana meditation, maybe tantrayana too) might be like that, analogous to that.

...According to the Buddha, the best we can do is looking objectively at Dhamma, our essential nature: knowing and seeing the sensorial world as it really is. Yathabhuta nana dassana.
Then awareness and equanimity will lead automatically to liberation of the self.
Shaila Catherine—Focused and Fearless. A Meditator’s Guide to States of Deep Joy, Calm, and Clarity (2008)  p. 149:

‘When the mind is profoundly balanced with equanimity, there is no averse reaction to the basic fact that nothing in the material world can bring satisfaction.’

Then we 'know' and 'see' that 'nothing in the material world can bring satisfaction':
Samyutta Nikaya (1.168):

'The entire world is in flames,
  the entire world is going up in smoke;
  the entire world is burning,
  the entire world is vibrating.
  But that which does not vibrate or burn,
  which is experienced by the noble ones,
  where death has no entry—
  in that my mind delights.'

Thoughts can in fact materialize. It seems that it violates the laws of nature but it doesn't. We are only beginning to learn about how our universe works. The following website explains it in more detail:
https://sites.google.com/site/materializationbythought/home?previewAsViewer=1

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. When adding links or references to an answer, please add a description of the the link in case the link should cease to exist.

When religion or dogma,or politics presses you ,especially in religion  where info and symbolism is illusiimal or delusional ,this religious information of existence  of evil or good deities wars and persecution,witchcraft, against you enter you,become permanent thought and will be materialized.  That's why so much calamities and madness happened to people and mankind .. I was also one of that victim . People become engaged in illusions internal and external  wars.. Where people wanted to find smooth medicine they found antagonistic opposition between unseen powers,and that makes people captivated

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


text:
Identification of a Buddhist text written in classical Chinese or Japanese
While looking for an answer to this question I found a text that contains the quote in question, but I cannot find any information about it.

Is it written in classical Chinese or classical Japanese? (The two written languages were apparently quite similar)
Is it a commentary to the Lotus Sutra as the title seems to indicate?
When was it written and by whom?
Are the divisions equivalent to the divisions of the Lotus Sutra?
Do the line numbers also point to the lines of the sutra?

I have no idea what this text is but I can tell that it is in Chinese, not Japanese, because if it were Japanese it would have kana in it instead of just Hanzi.

It's not that clear. For example, in the title the Japanese character 経 is used instead of one of the Chinese variants:經 or 经. Moreover, in it's earliest form, classical Japanese was written only with Chinese characters.

Seems like it was a commentary/notes by Nichiren when he studied the Lotus Sutra (http://www.genshu.gr.jp/DPJ/database/bunken/goibun/ibun_tyu.htm)

It is classical Chinese written in part of Chinese character and part of Japanese kanji Character,  it is still Chinese text, I can identify it because I am a Chinese speaker.
Yes it is Lotus Sutra
Kumārajīva and Yao Qin translated an ancient book "龜茲文本" to Chinese, that is Lotus Sutra

I can only answer this, I have no information for the rest of questions

Lotus Sustra came out at 406 A.D

authors: Hášíl Páůďýál


text:
Can Buddhism give any justification for military violence?
In Buddhism can there be found any justification (whatever the perceived provocation) for war and military violence?

There's a bit of a book on this subject, titled, "In Defense of Dharma: Just-war Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka".

In the Theravada tradition, there's no justification for killing. But justification is a personal thing. Buddhism tells you about the consequences of an action. Not whether it is justified or not. Killing intentionally is always bad Karma, whether you, the society, a religious community, a religious book, judges of courts, a god, inner voice, patriotism, honor etc. justify it or not.
But one highlighting factor is that if you kill virtuous beings, you get a lot of bad karma, whereas killing an immoral being will result in comparatively less bad karma.
A person who is trying to kill you is already an immoral being. And you may think of a justifiable reason to kill him. But killing him is still bad Karma which can cause much suffering to you in the future as well as corrupting your present mind state.
Karma is a law of nature. It is not a god who punishes you depending on how justified your reasons are for doing something.
ex: Think of a newborn baby touching fire. Having no knowledge of fire, is it fair for it to get burnt? Is it justified? Probably not! But why does it still get burnt? Because fire doesn't judge. It's simply a process of causes and effect. So is Kamma.

This is actually one of the best explanations of karma I have come across.  But what about the intention? Doesn't it take precedence over what ever the action/result of the actions was when it comes to karma?

Yes, intention is Karma. If the intention is tainted by greed/hatred/ignorance, it's bad karma. ex: If someone justifies violence, it is intention/judgment tainted by ignorance.

I think one should add, that the Buddha did not only teach this. Also, that a monk would be excluded from the sangha (disrobed) and also that a lay disciple can no more call himself being part of the sangha - because he compromised his "refuge to the dharma-buddha-sangha" . (There is a vinaya which goes beyond what is good or bad karma)

There are places in the older texts that one can find passages advocating violence. For example the Tibetan Kalachakra Tantra has got anti-Islamic passages in it which can be used as a justification for violence

The Chakravartin shall come out at the end of the age, from the city
  the gods fashioned on Mount Kailasa. He shall smite the barbarians in
  battle with his own four-division army, on the entire surface of the
  earth.

More recently Japanese Zen was connected with militarism and violence in the Second World war. There is a book Zen at War which gives an extensive study. There is a famous quote from Harada Daiun Sogaku justifying violence from a Buddhist perspective (source:  Zen at War)

march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation
  of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of
  which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war

Of course you don't need to look in the past at all to find examples of Buddhist justifying violence. There is violence today being advocated and committed by Buddhists against Muslim minorities in Burma.
Even though it seems incredible, considering the first precept and the radical non-violence propounded by texts such as The Parable of the Saw, Buddhists can an do justify the use of violence. I guess ultimately Buddhism is a human institution (albeit pointing to timeless wisdom) and like all human institutions it can and does have flaws and sometimes very grave flaws.

One has to consider that these documents (like the Nirvana Sutras) were written many centuries after the death of the Buddha and include views that may or may not reflect what the Tathagata taught. In particular, the justification for killing directly contradicts much of the Buddha's dhamma.

It's all very well for the "Loonwatch" link to quote "the Nirvana Sutra" chapter 19 but it would be helpful to mention which root text and which translation For example, http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf (linked from the Wikipedia article) renders the passage quoted above as "I heard the Brahmins
slandering the vaipulya. Having heard this, I did away with my life." Still violent, but putting quite a different spin on the passage...

@BrianDrummond Thanks for that. You are right the Nirvana text quote was poorly referenced. I've taken it out and the loonwatch link as it does seem needlessly provocative. If I can find the original translation then I might put it back it or feel free to edit the question to add it if you do see it. Metta

I was and am happy for that link & quote to be restored - provocative can be good! Just wanted to point out the possibility of translation errors or different interpretations. Some of the other "loonwatch" quotes do roughly match this translation in wording. I can't help feeling a different interpretation of these words is intended, such as "kill the icchantika within yourself". But I can't point to actual mistakes so have to leave it to the experts

As far as I know there are no instances in the Suttas where violence is justified.
We are informed of the consequences of violence, how it prolongs samsara and suffering of oneself and others. We are told to fear even the slightest akusala (wrong deed).
Yet those of us still under the sway of desire, will justify violence. Even here in Sri Lanka some Buddhist monks advocate violence and war during the time of the LTTE and more recently against the Muslim community. Their primary argument is that they are doing it to preserve Buddhism for future generations. An argument rejected by the Buddha.

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb,
  with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered
  even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
  yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
  words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with
  no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
  imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
  the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html

Yes, there is justification for war in Buddhism, at least in Zen. A quote from D.T. Suzuki, who is sometimes considered the founder of modern Zen:

if a lawless country comes and obstructs our commerce, or tramples on our
  rights, this is something that would truly interrupt the progress of all
  humanity. In the name of religion our country could not submit to
  this. Thus, we would have no choice but to take up arms, not for the
  purpose of slaying the enemy, nor for the purpose of pillaging cities, let alone for the purpose of acquiring wealth. Instead, we would simply punish the people of the country representing injustice in order that justice might prevail. How is it possible that we could seek anything for ourselves? In any event, this is what is called
  religious conduct.

This quote approves of war under some circumstances. This is acknowledged even in an article by Kemmyō Taira Satō, who is clearly sympathetic to Suzuki.

I'm quoting from my other answer to support this.
Protection of arahats (DN 16):

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."
  - DN 16

I'm not sure whether Buddha, The Gospel (Paul Carus, 1894) is based on canonical texts:

Simha continued: "I am a soldier, O Blessed One, and am appointed by
  the king to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. Does the Tathagata
  who teaches kindness without end and compassion with all sufferers,
  permit the punishment of the criminal? and further, does the Tathagata
  declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes,
  our wives, our children, and our property? Does the Tathagata teach
  the doctrine of a complete self-surrender, so that I should suffer the
  evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who
  threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Tathagata
  maintain that all strife, including such warfare as is waged for a
  righteous cause should be forbidden?"
The Buddha replied: "He who deserves punishment must be punished, and
  he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he
  teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and
  kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must
  be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury
  not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evildoing.
  His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executer of the
  law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in
  his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that
  this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that
  the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate
  but rejoice at it."
The Blessed One continued: "The Tathagata teaches that all warfare in
  which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, but he does not
  teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause after having
  exhausted all means to preserve the peace are blameworthy. He must
  be blamed who is the cause of war. The Tathagata teaches a complete
  surrender of self, but he does not teach a surrender of anything to
  those powers that are evil, be they men or gods or the elements of
  nature. Struggle must be, for all life is a struggle of some kind.
  But he that struggles should look to it lest he struggle in the
  interest of self against truth and righteousness.
  - Buddha, The Gospel 52

I think Carus is inspired by or includes some canonical texts, but that (contrary to what it titles itself) you shouldn't trust it as Gospel. IMO it's tainted by or altered for contemporary Christian views. If it's your only introduction to Buddhism then it's better than nothing, but IMHO we have more reliable sources these days.  so I'd never quote Carus as authoritative.

In Buddhism can there be found any justification (whatever the perceived provocation) for war and military violence?

A mention regarding this could be found in Ashoka Vadana
, a Buddhist text that describes the birth and achievements of Emperor Ashoka the great, perhaps one of the most prominent Buddhist Kings described in the literature.
Though Ashoka turned to Buddhism after having seen the perils of destruction in the Kalinga war and generally followed the principle of non-violence, the text describes that Ashoka did break the first precept many times in order to fulfill his military tasks. For instance,

In one instance, a non-Buddhist in Pundravardhana drew a picture showing the Buddha bowing at the feet of Nirgrantha Jnatiputra (identified with Mahavira, the founder of Jainism). On complaint from a Buddhist devotee, Ashoka issued an order to arrest him, and subsequently, another order to kill all the Ajivikas in Pundravardhana.

Killing is only reasonable if it is the only way to prevent worse circumstances. In the Jatakas there is the story of a bodhisattva who anticipates by his clairvoyance that a crew member of the ship is planning to kill all 500 others, so to prevent this person from causing all this suffering and simultaneously condemning himself to a hell rebirth, the bodhisattva compassionately kills him. Whether or not this results in the bodhisattva being reborn in hell is unclear, but I would guess not since karmic results are frame of mind induced, and his frame of mind was pure.
If buddhism really does advocate war under any circumstances where it does not lead to a better outcome then it has come far away from the teaching of mahayana.

Isn't that a truism which depends on the definition of "worse circumstances" and "better outcome"? For example, is it worse to wage war than to let a foreign power invade your country? Better to wage civil war than to let your religion be insulted, or diluted by foreign ethnicities? There are many ways to try to justify war.

worse circumstances is definitely vague, so a more clear version would be to reduce suffering. I have heard it commented that if a bear would suffer more by not eating the man than the man would from being eaten, then shouldn't the bear eat the man? But the problem with this assertion is that in reality after the bear has killed the man the bear will now suffer as well so that everyone suffers instead of just the bear, who is not actually suffering from not eating the man but actually from the desire to eat him.

Whenever Buddha or Arahant said something, it is only for Nibanna.
"Have you done this war with your own will to kill the enemy?"
" Did you do that killing by your own will or because of the king ordered you to do so?"
 When these questions when heard by the king Dutugamunu of Sri Lanka, and the executioner, they felt like relax and had chance to listen to Dhamma and finally got better afterlife. This is just the questions not proving it is right. No one is spared for consequences of Karma  even Buddha, sometimes having low back pain because of deliberately injuring the opponent in previous life. So there is NO JUST WAR. When Buddha time all the Ariya of Buddha relative got killed without any defense. So every body can do what one like only the consequence of Karma will have to be suffered later in the very life or afterlife.


text:
Will actors really go to hell?
In the Talaputta Sutra, the Buddha says that actors will either be reborn as an animal or go to hell.

When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn
in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now,
there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you:
either hell or the animal womb.

Why does the Buddha have such a dim view of actors? I can imagine all kinds of professions that would be less ethical than acting. Was acting a very different sort of profession in India 2500 years ago? Would the same kind of fate be shared with actors today? Are actors frowned upon in modern day Buddhist countries?
The motivation for this question is that I am due to give a talk on right livelihood at a local Buddhist centre. The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately, there was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really justify this harsh opinion, so I just muttered an apology and moved on.
Many thanks for any/all responses.

It seems to me the quote above is just about wrong view (Talaputa seemed to have strong faith in joining the laughing devas by being an actor). The other part, pertaining to the question, states that by intensifying delusions, passions and aversions, being "himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless [...] he is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter".

A more moderate view is probably the 'Bodhisattva's sphere of intimacy' chapter of the Lotus sutra, which says that actors are a type of person whom a bodhisattva shouldn't be intimate with. The reasons are probably things like acquiring bad habits and being drawn into bad company. (I don't intend this as a criticism of what may be a Pali text btw. If it seems so, please delete).

So attanā matto pamatto pare madetvā pamādetvā kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā pahāso nāma nirayo tattha upapajjati. Does anyone know if pamatto mean intoxicated or negligent? I read on one of translation it says negligent and clearless

The quoted words do not criticise actors! They criticise actors who hold a certain view and take a certain approach. The criticism might hold for most actors given the nature of the profession, but we are all actors on a stage.

@PeterJ What an interesting answer. I wish that were an answer instead of a comment, I might be the only person in the world who ever notices a comment posted against a old question since I use a specialised view of the site so I can moderate. Even in general answers should be posted as an answer not a comment, please, and even if they're short.

@ChrisW - It seemed a bit short and simple for an answer but I take your point and must keep it in mind.

@PeterJ See also Should this 'zen type' answer be deleted? if you will. I can't guarantee such as an answer would be popular, but ... :-)

@ChrisW - I see the difficulty. I would have deleted that answer as well. But you're right, comments and answers should be different hings.

@PeterJ Again (i.e. a bit like yours) I thought that "Zen statue" answer was a great answer though a little off-topic, off-the-wall, not what the OP was expecting. Normally we are supposed to answer the question (see Answers vs Advice), but yours here did seem to be though based on the text in question though and therefore on-topic, especially as the topic is tagged modern-world rather than e.g. theravada.

The Buddha quote from the sutta says that anyone with some passion, aversion or delusion, reinforces it by watching the actor's performance. The actor too is intoxicated with emotions due to getting into character to play the role. And by acting out the role on stage, the actor has the intention of getting the audience to experience the same emotions. This intention is karma.
So, this is a question about Right Livelihood. The butcher had the intention and actions to take the life of the animals he slaughtered. And in this case, the actor had the intention and actions to reinforce emotions in the audience that are filled with passion, aversion or delusion. So, it stands to reason that such an acting career is not following Right Livelihood. This surprises me too, but it makes sense.
However, if the acting role results in reinforcement of thoughts and emotions that are conducive to the dhamma, then that can't be wrong in any way, can it?

The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there
  was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really
  justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Exactly! For the very same reason, the Buddha said "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that" and refused to answer the question the first time. An actor shouldn't be put off or judged as being a bad person in public. This will take them away from the dhamma. After all, acting by itself is not bad. It's about intentions.

how is having emotions a "wrong view" ?

and how can you compare a butcher to an actor ?

With "emotions", I have summarized what the sutta lists specifically as passion, aversion and delusion (the three poisons). The Ajivaka Sutta also mentions the three.

The comparison is not regarding the actions. It is about intentions. The butcher had the explicit intention to take the life of the animals, while the actor did have the explicit intention to inflame emotions in the audience, including passion, aversion and delusion (at least in some cases). As I said, it surprises me also.

Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.
I think the Buddha was referring to People with Wrong View. Which in this particular  story happened to be an actor.But could be anybody from different kind of professions. On the other hand when you come to think of it this profession requires someone to intentionally sum up anger,hatred,passion to get into "character" where you may be lost in it,or become it for it to be believable.So it might have some detriments.Or vice versa actors may take up roles of playing a holy man or a noble individual which may have some benefit.

Buddha made  two statements. The first one encouraging greed, hatred and delusion, the destination is hell of laugher. The second statement is wrong view, the destination is either animal womb and hell. You can encourage defilem on other people in pretty much anything, not only by being an actor. So it's not only about wrong view.

Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.

I think this line is also important, apart from the answer. There's a reason why the Buddha refused to answer even for the second time. Because the answer to this question could potentially turn certain people away from the Dhamma. But Talaputta was wise and matured enough to figure it out.
To understand this, you have to analyse the mind states of an actor. An actor is a person who glorifies and savors emotions like anger, rage, lust, craving etc. So if a person dies with such a mindstate, his/her destination cannot be a good one. The following passage clearly explains it.

Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound
  by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things
  inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a
  festival.... Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

Also, believing that such a profession would lead one to a happy destination makes it worse as false view comes into play as well. But this does not mean that all actors are hellbound. It depends on what Kamma comes forward to bear fruit at the time of death.
To take an example, an actor getting angry and pretending to kill someone on stage usually does not involve mind states corrupted enough to kill a man for real. So the Kamma he accumulates by acting the scene is much less than someone doing it in real life.

Acting leads towards hell (or lower destinations), it is one of those things perceived to be harmless but actually causes harm.
But it's not true that all actors would go to hell just that acting itself leads towards hell.
In fact believing "all people who do certain things go to hell" is a wrong view that leads towards hell according to The Buddha:

'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who
  steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell
  lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.'
  There are lies that I have told. I, too, am destined for a state of
  deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he
  doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind,
  doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he
  would thus be placed in hell. (Sankha Sutta, SN 42.8)

The Buddha also explains in other suttas the complexities of kamma that it's not true that all people who do evil go to hell or that all people who do good go to heaven, some people who do evil still go to heaven and others that do good go to hell.

"Now there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had
  wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.But (perhaps)
  the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the
  good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right
  view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death."
  (Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 136)

What happens to a person after death relies on much more than just one thing or one deed, but also earlier kamma, later kamma, and the view at the time of death, which is why sometimes good people go to hell and evil people go to heaven.
The effects of kamma however will always be felt in some form either now or in some existence

"...he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next
  rebirth, or in some subsequent existence" (Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta,
  MN 136)

The Buddha also explains how an evil deed can take one individual to hell but for another individual gets experienced here and now and barely appears for a moment, depending how developed the individual is in body, virtue, mind, and discernment:

"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)

Since everyone has intentionally or unintentionally done evil deeds, had wrong views, etc...either now or in the past they should try to become developed in body, mind, virtue, discernment, and large-hearted.
So will "all actors go to hell?" the answer is no.
But will "most actors go to hell?" I'm not sure, The Buddha seems to indicate that most people in general go to the three lower destinations after death (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts).

Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of
  his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is
  greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my
  fingernail, or the great earth?"
"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the
  Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to
  nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a
  fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with
  the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in
  hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.
... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in
  the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts." (Pansu Sutta, SN 56.102)

So most people in general go towards the three lower destinations (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts) after death including actors and non-actors...very few go to the more pleasant destinations (humans, devas (heavenly world)).

Buddha is aware person. He is careful about his actions and it's effects on others. Buddha understands that existence treats you according to what you are. You become what you do. Whether it is subtle action like thinking or gross action, you become what you do. You are what you do. Existence treats you according to what you are. Buddha did not just mean actors, he also meant those who arouse passions in others whether they are politicians, priests, actors or anyone. Hence Buddha said that blessed is the one word that brings peace...... According to Buddha, because actors arouse passions in people and push them deeper in to ignorance, Buddha understood what actors are and what existence will do with them. Hence he said that actors will go to hell of laughter not the heaven.

Firstly, i have to say, i do not know the passage of the text. So my help may be limited or in fact unless!
But, here goes. When the Buddha was referring to an "actor" is it possible that He was referring to a person who lives a deluded life of ignorance, resulting in extreme manifestations of imagination, thus the "actor" is created (but not a real film or stage actor, as a job). This would make sense as, the Buddha went on to say that there are only two destinations for such a mind. Which is true, ignorance at it's highest level would result in poor choices and actions in this life and the next. And the reference to the " stage" well, that could be Earth or existence.
Again, not sure i have been of any help, but this is my view with such little knowledge of the text.
Metta.

More like the Buddha had a dim view of people with wrong view. Being an actor doesn't always mean the actor is going to have wrong view about devas laughing at the actor. The Buddha doesn't specify how much wrong view leads to lower realms so we have to take this in context. The Buddha's words are tailored for individual audiences and he says things in a way these individuals can understand. This is a reason there seems to be contradictions galore in the Buddha's teaching and another reason there seems to be contradictions is because ultimate and conceptual teachings seem to clash at first like, "there is a self and there is not a self to be found". That only seems contradicting if we don't understand the Buddha is talking about two ways to experience reality.

An actor is a micchā-vācā of micchā-ājīva in 8-mijjhā-magga, akusala-kammapatha-offense career that buddha said "reborn in hell", because it is 7th of 10 akusala kammapatha, samphappalāla-akusalakammapatha. And that mijjhā-ājīva is wrong livelihood in vanijjasutta (english translation).
Actor/singer career is direct hindrance career for the meditations, because 8 fold path require right speech and right action of right career first as adhi-sīla (observe-practice that is an important base of meditation-practice, higher level practice).

When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn
  in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view.
  Now,there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell
  you: either hell or the animal womb.

Seems quite straight forward. At the time some actors obviously believed they'd be going to be with the laughing devas after death. This was wrong view which meant they were buggered especially if they were born into the animal realm if the Chiggala Sutta is anything to go by.

Neither the Buddha nor the Sutta quoting the Buddha here, say that an actor is generally, because of the job actor, destinated in lower realms but, again:

When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

And missing passage in the Sutta:

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

Something that counts for everyone with ever kind of livelihood.
So if one is eager to move more worse and encourages other as well, that is the reason for hell.
And if a person even holds the view that such leads to heaven, then even more worse.
It's just that it is tge nature of common acting an show business, that such might be often the case.
There are plenty actors who actually work against passion, aversion and delusion.
If in this view an ice-cream seller is crazy ofter ice and makes the mass crazy in seeking for consuming it, if he holds the view that passion after ice-cream leads to heaven, then hi case is the same of that of this actor here.
Many ways of offensive advertising on illusion, look on advertisement generally, are fully in the frame of being destinated to hell.
It would be totally against the Dhamma and the Buddhas approaches to say biased an preoccupied that this or that job lead, because of this or that job, to hell.
So Suttas should be carefully readed and Kamma be understood. Otherwise bias and grave A-Dhamma is naturally.
So one telling people with delusion and views: "Yes, actors are destinated to hell. Yes, that is wrong livelihood!" in general, increasing others bias with his bias, such a person is in this way destinated to hell. Why? He does actually not know, not understand, listens to his teacher and soon may cry, for having been cheated in that way. Actually teaching without knowing is much more dangerous as acting, since most people would at least do not take acting serious, but if one appears "acting" as a teacher, such is much more serious!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

its not the profession that makes the person goes to hell or haven its the deception that person cause through his acting and emotional violation he cause on others that person to become "Agathigami", its not just acting but any profession or act that creates bad influence on others can end up in the same category,
But remember no one will just go to hell just because they deceive others, why ? There is no good and bad things in the universe according to Buddha all the thouts are in the category called "Karma", no one judges you, no one decide your path,  what will judge you is your own you consciousness with the understanding that you had,
universe or god or anyone will not record anything you do, but there will be ripples of your Karma that emits through you to the universe which effects you, as we know its all about negative and positive vibrations which universe has being made out, so at some point some of these vibrations that you emits will get back to you in some part of universe when you born again (there is no re birth in Buddhism and its an another mind boggling thearoy), in every thought that you emits have its signature or frequency that can resonate on you as good or bad depending on what you emits and its not always true either because Karma has types like "Ahosi kamma" which has loss power to resonate on you or just Dissipated in to universe while its reaching you.
The bottom line is whatever you do is depend on how you feel about it not just because others have fixed standard on it, the meaning that you attached to it, if your goal is to deceive people and take advantage of fame , money, attraction and if you know its bad then the Karma of acting thoughts (your action doesn't have place in Karma just your thoughts , but there is no action without thoughts and there is lots of thoughts without evan you knowing about it, Ironic ha..) will became bad that's what 99% of actors do they wants their acting to be more realistic and deceiving and those are very bad thoughts, but if your act is to spread morel value ,and your pure goal is to give happiness or joy or hope to someone and that's Good Karma.
Its all what you think directly or indirectly, your consciousness ,your feelings of good and bad, right or wrong which makes your Karma , not what others feel or others do becous of you. No one have a thing to do with that.as long as your intentions are good (according to your thoughts - inner voice or whatever) evan someone became a king of hell becouse of something you do or say will not evan effect you in any way.

what does "Agathigami" mean?

prejudicial = harmful to someone or something; detrimental. to become bad

Thank you https://suttacentral.net/define/agati +
https://suttacentral.net/define/gama This is an English language forum and it is best to use Roman Pali words. Regards

yes same, its mean "tendency to be bad", and you can also use the word with the meaning of "being bad"

Ye. I know "agati" means "prejudice" or "bias". DN 31 describes four types of agati, namely, agati due to love (chandāgati), due to hate (dosāgati), due to fear (bhayāgati) and due to stupidity (mohāgati).

yes you are very correct, once someone in one of such a road , its very hard to turn around. and the most dangerous one is mohāgati which will blocks all the ways of returning back. or being enlightened, such person will go deep and deep into his own endless hell without ever hawing a lite of understanding.

Earlier I watched a Dhamma Talk by a monk on YouTube.
The monk said the profession itself (actor, comedian, artist) is neutral. But in reality we sometimes see that some comedians make people laugh by harming other people (playing harmful jokes on others). If the person do this repeatedly than the person will collect many bad karmas, thus the person will be born in lower realms. But if the comedian makes people laugh by jokes that are not harmful to other, than it shouldn't be a problem. Same with other profession like actor and artist, what makes it bad/good is ourselves. Are we, as an actor and artist, creating bad karma by harming others, or creating good karma by making other's lives better?
Another example is when an artist makes a Buddhist song that inspires other to do sila and bhavana, than that is undoubtly good karma. If the song is created to diss others, than that's not too skillfull.
Then again, it all depends on ourself. What our intention is, and whether we harm others in the process. So to answer your question, no, not all actors are hellbound. No one in this world is hellbound, it all depends on our action and intention.

Little Buddha came out in 1993. Starring actors who portrayed characters including Siddartha himself. So you can go get your answer from the guy who wrote that Sutta and give him a piece of their minds. Be blessed.

Short, perfect and stunning answer. +1. ;) :)

no..  in that sutta, he didnt guarantee that actors will go to suffering realm in next life.   only truly doomed people are those who committed 5 heinous crimes (Ānantarika-karma).
Let me see if could remove that (-) off my comment by explaining it further.  This one prince (i dont recall his name but something like Sorakani Sakaya-he was related to buddha,hence, sakaya) was an alcoholic.  After his death, Buddha proclaimed him a stream enterer.  All others were skeptical and said something like if a habitual drunkard could be a stream enterer then who isnt?    Buddha answered that question in two parts: prince Sorakani had always had unshakable confidence in Buddha, dhamma, and sangha tho his will to stop drinking was too weak while was still alive.   However, a moment at his death bed, he determined to practice dhamma by holding the 5 precepts.  He had every quality to be a stream enterer.
this is my own thought..  stream enterer is one who has the right view and starting to take that first step in the right direction.
this go back to the original question, will all actors go to hell?   it is not a guarantee.  Buddha only guaranteed rebirth in suffering realms for those who have commited Ānantarika-karma.  Not all actors will go to hell because there are many factors to it as sample above.  Also look up red bearded executioner.
Please do not wait until last minute to practice dhamma like prince sorakani  because we do not know when that last moment will come.   :-)

The sutta appears to refer to an actor intoxicated & heedless with passion, aversion & delusion. It does not refer to all acting per se.
The breakup of the body, after death, means after the ending of a intoxicated & heedless acting performance. In other words, an actor that is addicted to deluded laughter and does not have any wholesomeness as a refuge for their life.
For example, today, in Hollywood, many (but not all) actors are so intoxicated with their superficial & sensual life that they have psychological, relationship &/or drug/alcohol problems; which is 'rebirth' in the lower realms.
For example, Robin Williams was a comedian with a history of substance abuse and later developed depression. It could be hypothesized an addiction to laughter lead to an avoidance of unpleasant feelings & an addiction to getting high on drugs which ultimately lead to depression.
For example, Jewish Israel-born actress Natalie Portman. She embraces those Jewish values that are wholesome, has always been concerned about avoiding roles leading to sexual objectification &, in particular, is critical of Israeli actions toward Palestinians; particularly boycotting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It follows such an actress would not be reborn in hell, at least related to these matters, because each is devoid of chauvinism and delusion.

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


text:
Is the reputation system counterproductive to Buddhist practice?
Are we sure that the search for credit and for approval does not infect the ego of the users of this site?

This question belongs on meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com, and has probably been discussed before. In my case the points system has inflated my ego in the past, more than once, so i do try to keep that in check.

on the other hand the points system has its benefits to the community; if we have incentive to produce a better Q&A site, random people looking for answers will enjoy the benefits.

@qweilun I totally agree. This would be an excellent topic for discussion on the meta site so I've flagged it for migration there.

I disagree this belongs on Meta. I see this as a question about Buddhist practice.

@AndreiVolkov - So am I, Andrei. This belongs to the core of Buddhist practice.

I think the credit and approval system does what it's supposed to do: highlight the best answers to a question. The fact that it inflates the ego of some vain people is not the problem of the moderation system: it's the problem of the people's vanity. In the same way we don't blame on cars the fact that some people drive dangerously.
You cannot blame a tool for what people make of it. A tool is not good or bad, it's just suitable or not.

Upasaka Sirinath answered on other place here very related:

In a gamified system like SE/SO reputation and score is a source of motivation.
In a Buddhist context, this can be both:

stinginess as to one's gains (Lābha-macchariya) - in this case, gain in reputation
stinginess as to one's status (Vaṇṇa-macchariya) - in this case, total reputations accumulated

But for this system to work gamified element is essential as this is tied to the privileges on getting on the site. Also, votes and acceptance can guide people who are not very knowledgeable in Dhamma to finding better answers. So one should vote on and accept answers which one sees as being in line with the Dhamma and downvote on ones which seam not being in line with the Dhamma. (Use this sparingly as it might agitate users.)
In the real world giving something has merit as it is useful to others. In this system, one can give to questions and answers as bounty. If one is attached to reputation then this may help reduce macchariya. But a better way is not to be bothered with the reputation gains. If you are mentally not attached then this will not hinder the achievement of Jhana. Having said it is better to put bounties more sparingly to questions which might attract great answers which are useful to the spread of dhamma. Also awarding a bounty may be en endorsement that one agrees with the answer and it is in line with the Dhamma. This should not be left to the system alone. People without much knowledge can use this to distinguish what is in line with the Dhamma and what is not using this as a cue.
To summarise, votes, accepting and bounties serve a purpose, even in spreading the Dhamma. One should explore how this works for oneself and use it wisely so that it aids the spread of the dhamma signalling to other users about the correctness and acceptability of what is being said. Also, look at the system like a hammer. If you are using it there is a particular way to use it. If you do not hit with the head it does not work. So try to put the system to work in a way which benefits the dhamma the most. This being backed by good volition would also mean positive karma.