text:
What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma?
What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against an enemy who is hell bent on wiping out all buddhists in the name of religion? Should a buddhist actively participate in war against evil? I would like to have an answer both from a buddhist layman and a soldiers perspective. An active resistance to injustice in general. Thank you.

I personally find it difficult to accept that Buddhism is compatible with violence:

The first precept is I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
On the eightfold path, the definition of right and wrong livelihood (career) prohibits Business in weapons (also, slavery and prostitution, meat, intoxicants, and poison)
When you consider whether you should be "fighting against an enemy who is hell-bent", remember the verses at the very beginning of the Dhammapada,

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

However, there are nominally Buddhist countries, which have soldiers. For example,
In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka includes innumerable quotes, from people who are arguing for and against violence, including quotes like,

"Though some Sri Lankan Buddhist interpreters of Buddhism, including the
  Venerable Walpola Rahula, have claimed that “violence in any form, under any
  pretext whatsoever, is absolutely against the teaching of the Buddha,” and thus
  of Buddhism, some Buddhists that I interviewed in Sri Lanka during the summers
  of 1997 and 1998 suggested that war can be justified if certain criteria are met. In
  this chapter, I shall highlight the “just-war thinking” that a section of Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka argues shaped Dutugemunu’s conscience, and examine what
  foundation there is, if any, for such thinking in Theravada Buddhism, in general."

"we have to peacefully fight our enemies"

"killing to defend the
  country or the sasana, therefore, brings few negative karmic repercussions, because
  the intention is to save, rather than to harm"

"As we determined in Chapter 2 of this study, due to monks’ perceptions of
  themselves as “sons of the soil,” or bhumiputras, the sangha perpetuates and
  reinforces the idea that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalas who are Buddhist. As
  Professor Aryarasinghe’s political party’s platform makes clear, however,
  bhumiputra ideology is not the monks’ alone; lay Buddhists, too, deem themselves
  to be sons of the soil. As we have also seen, the commitment to the soil might
  allow for justifications of violence, even war, if certain conditions are met. At the
  same time, there are a number of lay people and, in particular, monks, who are
  committed to their other “historic” mission, that is, to being exemplars of the
  Buddha’s message of peace, to being sons of the Buddha, or Buddhaputras."

"Each of us should contribute to the cooling down
    process. If one individual is peaceful it means one less in the violent
    crowd."

In my interview with Premaratne in 1998, he steadfastly argued that the civil
  war will not be solved in the battlefield; instead, according to Premaratne, we can
  find a resolution to Sri Lanka’s problems in the paradigm of the Buddha’s life and
  in Buddhist ideas about the self. In Premaratne’s view, Buddhism never justifies
  war, and the fact that the Buddha chose to be a universal teacher (world renouncer)
  rather than a cakkavati (world conqueror) demonstrates that peace is superior to
  war."

Specific, notable Buddhists including the Dalai Lama seem to say that it's sometimes "necessary".
So in summary it seems to be difficult to be completely clear about what "Buddhism says": because it's possible to find "mixed messages" on this subject.
I personally think that:

"Abstain from killing" as a number one precept is pretty clear. It reminds me of this article, published in a satirical newspaper (soon after September 11, 2001): God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule.
Saying that "killing terrorists doesn't count as killing, they deserve it, they brought death upon themselves, they made me do it" seems to me very dubious logic. For example, quoting from the Mahavamsa as written in the "Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka",

Dutugemunu asks them
  how he will ever find comfort, considering what he had done, that he had killed
  such a lot of people. The arahants respond with their own just-war thinking:

Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord
    of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken
    unto himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the
    rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring
    glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast
    away care from the heart, O ruler of men.

Unfortunately this reminds me of the Nazi arguments/propaganda used to commit genocide in Nazi Germany: that people such as the Jews were "sub-human" and, also, were "a threat" (a threat to God's order; threat to German society; threat to German morality; threatening to enslave hard-working Germans; a deadly threat not only to the survival of the German people but to the survival of the world!)
I also don't see how Christians justify war: "Turning the other cheek" seems to me unambiguous. I know that people who are nominally Christian have tried to justify it with the theory of just war but that doesn't seem to me to be Christian: maybe it's life (and death), maybe it's the world, but it's not Christian, IMO.
Supposedly Buddhist doctrine such as,

"The Buddha replied, 'He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness.' These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punishes, he must not harbor hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realize that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind. And the Blessed One continued, 'The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order, after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict, are blameworthy."

... seems to me to come from a different tradition (a non-Buddhist Dharma), i.e. it's the central message of the Bhagavad Gita, that man-the-killer is an instrument of God ("Facing the duty to kill his relatives, Arjuna is counselled by Krishna to fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty as a warrior and kill.") ... or in the quote above, a mere instrument of karma.

There's a saying, in the west, that "war is hell".
There is, similarly, quite a famous Zen story on that subject.
As for whether you should "actively participate in a war against evil", or how to participate if you must, my knowledge of non-Buddhist history suggests there have been a (relatively very few) people in the west who, calling themselves "pacifists" and "conscientious objectors", served in non-aggressive, altruistic, personally dangerous roles: for example disposing of unexploded bombs, or acting as medics, and as front-line stretcher-bearers (rescuing the wounded).

See also Can lay people be involved in the weapons business?

A very good answer, Thanks for taking my country's perspective into your answer. Even though it is a popular opinion in my country it is highly doubtful that lord Buddha would agree.

According to Buddhism the enemies are within us in the form of defilements and hindrances. We have to actively try to conquer them.
A military career is as as accepted profession. See BUDDHIST SPECTRUM.
Major General Ananda Weerasekera (later ordinated as Bhikkhu Buddangala Ananda) makes the some further observation about the topic in Buddhism & The Soldier and suggests that a government should have a strong army and the qualities of the soldiers.
Active resistance is inevitable in some cases. But this should be the last option. having said this our real enemies are within us not outside us.
Also see: Can a Buddhist Join the Army?, Right Livelihood: The Noble Eightfold Path in the Working Life

The "Buddhist Spectrum" reference which you quoted says, "Buddhism recognizes five vocations as right livelihood: ... 4. Service in the armed forces." Do you know which sutta defines these 5 vocations? I only found this reference to samma ajivo, which actually implies the opposite i.e. a warning against being a soldier.

I found it: it is quoting the Dighajanu Sutta, which is in the Anguttara Nikaya.

As I just said on Should one call oneself a Buddhist? rigid identification with anything, including a religious tradition, leads to conflict and suffering.
Instead of calling ourselves Buddhists, and going to war in the name of protecting Buddhism, we should properly follow Sat-Dharma and drop all clinging, including clinging to our identity as Buddhists.
Buddhism is a meme. Islam is another meme. When memes fight, people suffer.
If we stop being Buddhists and just be good people, there will be no reason for muslims to hate us. When there is no form -- there is no identity -- there is no enemy -- there is no war -- there is no suffering.
In a conflict, a good practitioner of Sat-Dharma does not take sides. Instead, he or she works on reconciling the sides.

What about King Ashoka? He was a practitioner of Buddhas teachings and still had a strong army to protect India from the forces outside at that time. A soldier with a mind to protect and willing to serve his country is following the sat-dharma as the volition is good even though killing might still take place at the battlefield.

Passively letting yourself get killed is pretty stupid. Actively protecting yourself is better. Reconciling the conflict through diplomacy is even better. Preventing the conflict before it starts is still better. Managing the situation so that a conflict cannot possibly even begin to form, is the best.

@AndreiVolkov I agree with diplomacy part but what you say here "Passively letting yourself get killed is pretty stupid" is a bit different in Lord Buddha's perspective.Refer this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshanti . The very reason of conflict is the struggle to protect the "Me or what's Mine". As we practice the exact opposite you should understand - When there is no Me thereis nothig to protect (Anatta). The only thing you gain from a fight is bad karma to suffer many lives but If you get slayed it will be some suffering but only once.

Don't mix protect and defend, two different words.

I think we have modern day examples like the khmer Rouge that wanted to wipe out anyone that did not think the way they did.
I did not see a mobilizations of Buddhists to go fight the Khmer Rouge.
If there is such an enemy, often Buddhists lay down their lives rather than fight.

Short and sweet!

Really good question.  I remember  reading  a Sutra  where a king lay down his life fighting  enemy  for the sake of protecting Buddha dharma and die later on  . Because the king did rightly,  the king did not end up in hell. But it also do let me ponder that for us to do the same,  we must  be ready  to end up in hell.  Our intention  maybe good,  but there is no guarantee  what we do are actually  purely correct.  Just like shakyamuni  Buddha which one of his past life he commit suicide to feed the tiger and the tiger babies.  Shakyamuni  Buddha said he end up in hell. But because his intention is pure,  he experienced happiness  while  in hell.
As far as I understood,  there are prayers that help protect Buddhism.  Such as Dharma protectors mantra. 4 Heavenly  king mantra.  Especially surangama mantra. Printing  and distribute Buddha Sutra for free will help change the course.  Most people  misunderstood Buddhism badly.
This  is dharma  ending  age.  It is a matter of time
When Buddhism gonna completely gone.  Some said it another ten thousand years before it is completely  gone. I did a bit checking here and there,  most likely  Buddhism will stay another 1000 years because  there is another religion war gonna break out around 200 years time.
I am just  a beginner  Buddhist  who has very  weak virtues  at this moment  of my life.  I will  probably  pick up gun myself too. But I do make strong prayers  at time asking Bodhisattva and Buddha so that I won't  find myself picking gun at all.  For me,  the Buddha and Bodhisattva  did come to my rescue many times.
But stronger Buddhists in spiritual development are supposed to be able to die without holding  any grudges on their enemy.  Instead they may even feel compassionate and pity toward their enemies  because  they know their enemies are gonna stay very long in hell.
Because  destroy Buddha dharma has a very great and harmful effects,  I think  those who did this are likely to be in hell longer than those who commit  suicide.

In DN16, the Buddha praises self-defense in the scope of protecting and guarding the arahats of the land.

"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."

For a good Buddhist , is to always avoid any cause that will create
bad effect, as we can see clearly in the 4 noble truths for example.

The above appears to be an inaccurate idea. Buddhist nations are not made up of "good Buddhists" but are generally made of ordinary people called "puthujjana" who superficially follow a superficial version of Buddhism.
For example, Burma & Thailand are two Buddhist nations that made war against each other for hundreds of years: Burmese–Siamese wars.
For example, it appears it was the Tibetans who violently breached the 17 Point Agreement with China. Regardless, the Tibetans were already training with the CIA.

Fight or get killed?

This was already answered. It is not the practising Buddhists that will fight a war.


text:
Mental note of thoughts during the day
During daily activities it is ok to do a mental note when thoughts arise saying "thinking thinking" just in like the sitting meditation? I try to label every physical and mental phenomena during the day and nothing strange with that but with thinking it seems that sometimes I block it straight away when arise so I was just wondering if is too much and if I should stop noting.

You should probably make it clear what tradition you're practicing in, since the answers are coming from various traditions, and probably conflict.

I am new at this and I didn't actually think that was important to say which tradition I am practicing. I am a lay Theravada Buddhist practicing insight meditation

Labeling one's thoughts was one of Chogyam Trungpa's main meditation techniques for beginners. As I understand now, in context of Path at large, it is an entry-level practice for establishing basic reflexive awareness and reducing the grasping. Labeling serves two purposes: 1) it encourages one to try and be aware of one's associative cycle and 2) it interrupts the train of thoughts that otherwise has a tendency to be engrossing.
There is nothing special or supernatural about this technique: the labeling itself is, again, thinking (6th consciousness). If we took it to its logical conclusion, we would get into an endless loop. So maxing out this labeling, especially in post-meditation, is kinda pointless. It would be like treating poisoning with more poison. No wonder Susan Blackmore found herself at difficulty walking across the street!
Instead, the idea at this stage is to disidentify from our thoughts, to understand that our thoughts are not "me". The point is not in mechanically identifying consecutive thoughts, but rather in 1) setting up your subconscious intent ("alarm clock"), so that the "noticing" after "the getting carried away" happens by itself, but also 2) learning to let go (of an "important" thought) and come back to breathing.
At this point, thoughts can come and go like fishes in the ocean. Here you sit, watching the ocean, then you sense a thought's fuzzy contours, like a shadow moving deep down. As fish comes closer, it gradually takes shape and clarity. You can either dismiss it, or let it come. It gets more and more concrete, until it jumps on you and takes you flying. You can either get carried away, or you spend a second on the thought, tasting its flavour, tracing its roots that connect it to its underlying emotion and, further down, basic preconception -- before dismissing it. Chogyam Trungpa called this "touch-and-go" practice.
The next level up (it's not like it really is a linear progression, but for simplicity we could say so) is to try and see where the thoughts come from and where they go. This includes seeing where one's seeing (7th  consciousness) comes from. To explore that semidifferentiated sea of 8th consciousness, tasting its colors and energies and the overall weather -- is why we keep coming back to the breathing, a window onto the subconscious.

Thanks for the answer!I thought that labelling was a way of creating clarity of mind in the present moment so do you think that trying to labelling every mental and physical experience and see the three marks of experience is useless?is almost one year that I try to be mindful making a mental note of everything...maybe I am attached to it,sometimes the mental noting It seams to became a bit mechanical do you think is better to be mindfull whitout labelling?

No no, it is very useful, but as you get better and better, labeling gets subtler and subtler, and you see many other things that are more important than labeling and then even things that are more important than breath. Keep labeling, but keep paying attention. When your wings start growing, you don't need training wheels.

I though this was initially done by U Nārada later popularised by Mahasi Sayadaw

There are many lineages that hold authentic teaching. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was a Tulku, like Dalai Lama, which means since he was a baby he was brought up by the best Buddhist teachers. His main teacher was also a Tulku,  Jamgon Kongtrul 2nd (1902-1952) who was a student of another Tulku, 15th Karmapa (1871–1922) who was a student of Jamgon Kongtrul The Great (1813-1899) who was a student of 9th Tai Situpa Tulku (1774–1853), who was a student of 13th Karmapa Tulku (1733–1797) and so on and so forth. This is a truly royal linage of best teachers in Tibet.

Every mental content, or state you experience, is linked to sensations in your body. (After all, one the of the 5 aggregates is sensation.) You should examine the sensation. You should try to understand that the sensations you experience are what you like or dislike (with any thought, memories, ideas - when you remember something you do not like, you get a bad feeling in your body) and react to, try to grasp or get rid of. This is what keeps you in a conditioned existence. So to start with, you should always try to notice the sensations when thoughts come and go. Sharpen your mind to understand 3 marks of existence within sensation. The 3 marks of existence in your corporeal body. How perceptions are formed and their nature. How the recognising part of your mind works. These things grow progressively subtle. The start should be the impact of any mental state or content upon the sensations of the body, and if not all 3 marks of existence, at least their impermanence.

In her book Zen and the Art of Consciousness Susan Blackmore did exactly what you are doing and spent a couple of weeks being very mindful and noting during her everyday life. Her question was 'am I conscious now?' She found this very productive and interesting but she said it was unsustainable for her. She reached a point where she was so aware that she was unable to cross the road. She found the speed of the traffic too overwhelming. She had to stop the practice at this point.
I would hesitate to say don't do it because I'm really not any kind of expert but I just wanted to share that second hand experience. Certainly mindfulness in the everyday is an ideal but I'm not sure if I could go full on for it. Maybe little and often?

Thanks for sharing your idea.I find mindfulness very helpful it brings back the mind in the present, when i use a mental note i create a clarity of mind and i am aware at most of the experience that append around and inside me, sometimes i can even experiencing joy just because i am aware of things.But in some it seams that when a thoughts arise with aversion straight away i label it and it goes away.At this point i don't know if is better to look at it more close instead of letting go straight away.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are there reliable accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives?
Although the vast majority of people will not remember past lives, are there reliable accounts of people who have? Specifically are there accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives and whose experience can be (even partially) verified in some independent way? Or do people with past life memories generally come from other religions and traditions such as Hinduism?
I appreciate that reliable is a very ambiguous term. If possible could people perhaps note the quality of the evidence when answering. Is it anecdotal, statistical significant etc...?

Haven't you heard of Dr. Ian Stevenson's work? There are some youtube videos on his rebirth studies. Most of his subjects are Buddhists, Hindus and Christians.

@dmsp thanks - i haven't heard of this. If you've any extra details then could I tempt you to an answer

There's a Wikipedia article about Ian Stevenson, see also Reincarnation research.

The question as asked is interesting in itself, but if your intent is to make any scientific claim about recollection of past lives, the question to ask is not whether there are "reliable" accounts, but whether there are statistically significant ones. All of the "reincarnation research" I have seen fails to address this. While there are probably interesting academic topics you could research independently on the social phenomenon of belief that someone recalls a past life, pretending that these are scientific research into the occurrence of such recollection is dishonest.

@R.. Thanks for your comment. I'm not looking for validation in my belief in rebirth. TBH I'm agnostic about it at best. I'm just curious to see what evidence there is if any. I would be very interested if someone posted some evidence then used a scientific approach (think Ben Goldacre for medical research) to totally demolish the claim. I would imagine that the evidence that there is is anecdotal at best. But I don't know hence the question

@R..I've edited the question to tighten it up in response to your (very valid) comments

You don't give a period limit; do accounts from ancient times count? And how could one assess quality of evidence? Researching past life memories is tough, as Stevenson found out.

Dr. Ian Stevenson did research on rebirth, and most of his subjects were children. As I remember he said during the first 5-6 years of a child's life some of them would remember how they died. Most of them who remembered their previous life have had some sudden tragic death. Hence, these incidents seem to be deeply carved in their minds, but this memory would slowly fade away as they grew old.
Most of these incidents were reported from families having Hindu or Buddhist backgrounds because their parents believed in rebirth and believed their child was saying the truth. In some cases, when the researchers traced the child's past routes based on their stories, they had actually found that the person had existed.  Also in some cases it turned out that the parents have been lying to gain some popularity from local media. :)
But I think this research is not so popular among other scientists, claiming it has no clear evidence that backs his theories. Upon his death I think his student continues this work.
Here's link to their work.
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page
(Edited the previous reference according to Ven. Yuttadhammo's comment)

A better source would be http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page - they are the people who followed after Stevenson.

First and foremost account is the Jataka stories. These are generally the account of Buddha himself.
Also there are some records of his disciples.
In modern times a famous person who did research in this area is Edgar Cayce. Also there has been Parapsychology research in this area.
Keep in mind if it is a monk who has developed Abhijñā, they do not openly say they have such powers. (I know and seen some monks with these abilities who I have been very close to, but they will not come out to the open and show this so if I way so and so has it there is not way to ascertain my claim.)
As a final note, what I can say is Ehipassiko. Come and see for yourself. Develop the 4 Jhanas and see for yourself.

"What I can say is Ehipassiko. Come and see for yourself. Develop the 4 Jhanas and see for yourself." Probably the only way to prove it and believe it fully

Stevenson has published a summary of his work at the end of his life, see
Medical Hypotheses (2000) 54(4), 652–659
I add the summary of his paper:
Several disorders or abnormalities observed in medicine and psychology are not explicable (or not fully
explicable) by genetics and environmental influences, either alone or together. These include phobias and philias
observed in early infancy, unusual play in childhood, homosexuality, gender identity disorder, a child’s idea of having
parents other than its own, differences in temperament manifested soon after birth, unusual birthmarks and their
correspondence with wounds on a deceased person, unusual birth defects, and differences (physical and behavioral)
between monozygotic twins. The hypothesis of previous lives can contribute to the further understanding of these
phenomena.

Please consider adding some essential contents of the book into your answer; otherwise, a link-only answer may be downvoted.

Well, I am buddhist. I am from Sri Lanka. I told my story of past life when I was 2yrs old. I have seen many others who have told.

Dear Nimala9, do you remember today what you told from your past life when you were a small child? Your remembrance of your past life, how does it influence your present life?

@jo wehler yes. when I was two years I described about my mother and about meals I had (I had had not even seen or heard those food items). When I saw a neighbour house I have told that it looks like the house where I lived. I have told the exact village which is about 100km away. Well, in this life I am doing my education in University now and I used to have some phobia of seeing electrical sparks. As I had told my parents have died from some sort of electrical injury.

I understand:
• Being a child of 2 years you talked about your mother. But she was already dead at that time.
• At the same age you talked about a house where you lived before that time.
• And you explain your present phobia of sparks by the fact that your parents died by some sort of electrical injury.
Why do these facts point to a former life?
I would ask myself: Have I been a human beeing? Which character, which sex, which knowledge did I have? Married or not, having children … ? Which experiences of my former life help me in my present life and must not be learned again?

The famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century Ireland is in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridey_Murphy which has references to variously sceptical reports and evidence.
The book "Have you Lived Before this Life" by L. Ron Hubbard (1968) reports uncritically on 43 cases of remembered previous lives. It expressly contains no evaluation of the truth or falsity of the data, and each investigation was done as an "auditing" session or scientology confessional, where the investigator prompts the subject to recall usually painful, lurid episodes.
Hubbard himself reported an expedition to verify his own claimed past life memory in "A Test of Whole Track Recall" (1968) republished in 1972 as "Mission Into Time"
http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Mission_Into_Time . These books may not be in print now but Knud Eriksen, a Dane who is not an uncritical scientologist, has investigated http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/pastlife.htm the claimed past lives of Hubbard - there are several! - and "finds no good reason to doubt" them. Buddhists must continue to have doubts about Ron Hubbard's claim in "Hymn of Asia" to have been Buddha (Siddharta Gautama).

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


text:
Should one call oneself a Buddhist?
When people ask me about my religion, it always gets me thinking as how I should announce to another person that I practice Buddhism, should tell that I am:

A Buddhist
Follower of the Buddha
Practicing Buddhism

Or an alternative to these?

The way I was taught Buddhism: identifying oneself with anything is a fetter. Self-identification is a form of clinging, and as such it inherently leads to conflict between "this" and "that", hence suffering.
Ego is a box made of stuff we identify with. Ego is not just being selfish, it is what makes us tremendously vulnerable.
Externally, avoid defining yourself, except jokingly or if required by circumstances. Internally, have no idea who you really are.
Do not identify yourself as Theravada, Mahayana, Democrat, Republican, Russian, Ukrainian, Man, Woman, Buddhist, Programmer, Human, or Spontaneously
Self-Existing
Luminous
Unity
of Emptiness
and Form.

Thus, to all dharmas not getting stuck, not getting caught into traps of abstractions (aniketacari), not clinging -- he attains Awakening of the Lucky Ones.

I agree, it makes sense. I have to admit to be guilty myself with identifying with such thoughts (not for the last one though haha).

Would it be possible for you to make the distinction between a lack of knowing who you are and a lack of knowing one's self? I assume that these are two different functions

The above answer is "one who follows Dharma" because one is following the dharma of not identifying with anything. It is crucial to identify oneself with something because otherwise one will identify with anything which is not good and one will represent ignorance to others and be unable to find people that are on a similar quest as oneself (for friendship/community). Also it is hard to connect with people if they do not identify with certain truths--even temporarily. It is however important not to attach to whatever role or truth we are temporarily identifying with.

Also, ego is not entirely bad. The Buddha himself said that you must have a strong ego/desire before you can let go of it. The raft across ocean analogy.

In a way it's up to you how you self-identify. For a long time I struggled with calling myself a Buddhist. I come from an atheist background so identifying with a religion of any sorts was a struggle. These days I would call myself a practicing Buddhist if asked. For me Buddhism only makes sense to the extent that I practice it. It isn't a set of beliefs that I subscribe to. Rather it is a set of practices that I engage with. So to this extent I am a practicing Buddhist. If one day I stopped practicing then I wouldn't describe myself as a Buddhist at all.
Generally for me, it is important to nail my colours to the mast and identify with Buddhism. When I didn't do this I used to shift uncomfortably when asked about religion and mutter something non-committal. Even though I still find Buddhist an awkward term (my stuff) I think it's a good practice for me to identify as such. It is useful short hand for people so they have an idea about what is going on with you. Without this I found that I was almost lying to people about it (not quite). If people want to ask more than fine. If they don't then at least they've got some idea what is important to you and why you might be acting as you are acting.

Great to hear a very similar experience to mine, being atheist and having trouble identifying with any religion actually - especially spiritual. You're right, pragmatism is the key, I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist of any kind without practicing either.

This is not really important, Buddha was not a Buddhist, so if you believe in Kamma-Vipaka, if you understand the 4 noble truths, if you follow the noble eightfold path and if you try hard to tame your mind, you are in a very good position in the path.
Of course it is a beautiful and useful commitment to call oneself a Buddhist and follow all the practices from the refuge to the 8 precepts whenever possible, however the name is just a label, an inputation, practice is the key!
Calling yourself a Buddhist will not change anything, many people call themselves Buddhists (in some countries as Thailand they even register that in their ID) and do very bad things, it happens in all religions, the right understanding and most importantly the right practice ARE what really matter!

I think this might be a pedantic discussion. We say "Buddhist" in English because we use -ist as a suffix in English to denote a role. It's from the Greek ιστής. In Vietnamese one would say "Tôi theo Phật giáo." or basicly "I follow the Buddha." There's no -ist in Vietnamese because there's no Greek roots so no "Buddhist." IMO pick the one that works best for your language.

Asking what one's religion is a very western practice I think. When reading the suttas and the vedas, it seem that the eastern method of inquiry has been to ask, "who's teachings do you follow?", "who do you take as your spiritual teacher/guide?". It is not a mere labeling, like the latter. It also holds the teacher and the student responsible and accountable. Whereas when one says one belongs to such and such religion, apart from the original teachings, which are most likely corrupted within the religion, are the cultural, ritual and historical baggage.
Wouldn't it be nice if say the Christians in the Ireland just say we follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, based on compassion, forgiveness and love, instead of saying they are Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, and then have to carry all the historical feuds. Likewise in Buddhism, Islam, etc. Sadly the old colonial mentality of asking for one's religion is still practiced in Sri Lanka where every form, e.g birth registration, marriage, school application, police report, voter registration, has an area asking for religion.

that's interesting thanks. fwiw, i'm british and don't think of the buddha as a (spiritual) guide, personally feel that the religion has evolved enough to warrant the claim that any living teacher is

One should not get attached to the self image one creates as a Buddhist at more advance stages of the practice. When you start though you need views and identifying yourself with the right views, value and moral system to keep you on track, tough you have to abandon it later.
What exactly you should call your self is more linguistic in nature and should change according to the context it is used also considering the audience.
You can be considered a Buddhist from the point you develop some level of faith to try out the 3 fold practice. You can consider your self a practicing Buddhist when you start your 3 fold training.

i think i may have had some or a basic enlightenment type experience (real or fraudulent), while still quite ignorant of anything but the basic philosophy of nagarjuna. so anyway, the point of this diversion is that i didn't call myself a buddhist then merely because i thought "buddha" was a better word, for anyone who accepted basic teachings! weird really, looking back

You could speak of your spiritual practice. It depends on how much you are identified with a particular sect of Buddhism. Maybe it is better to be cautious - why expose your jewels to someone that may be just trying to nail you up against the wall.
In the office everyone asks how are you, but no one really wants to know. So I tell them fine and they feel they have fulfilled their obligation.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda01.htm

What is Buddhism? The name Buddhism comes from the word 'budhi' which
  means 'to wake up' and thus Buddhism is the philosophy of awakening.
  This philosophy has its origins in the experience of the man Siddhata
  Gotama, known as the Buddha, who was himself awakened at the age of
  35.

So you could say you belong to the wake up religion.
http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/wake_up.html
other words are revive so you are part of a revival religion. Of course that is close to Christian revivals.
so maybe I would say I just say I practice on my own.
The choice is yours, but watch the results next time it happens.

I prefer practicing Buddhas teachings because technically that's what I try to do. I am not ordained not born into a Buddhist family. Rather I was born into a Hindu family and now I practice Vipassana so I have to face this question quite normally living among Hindu friends and family. It doesn't make much difference to me now as it used to since I first started out. I think the sara(essence) of all the religions is the same. It's the outer crust such as clothes, looks, theology, rites and rituals that people get stumped out on. Every religion teaches you to love but it's the recent age practitioners that have given society the image of a particular religion.
Your question seemed to have a certain background hence the diversion. But nonetheless practice matters most. Doesn't matter what you want to call it.

You can call yourself a Dhamma follower or Dhammānusārī in Pali. Please see this answer for details.
The term is used by the Buddha himself in the Kitagiri Sutta (MN70) and the Okkanta-samyutta (SN25).
In the Kitagiri Sutta, a Dhamma follower is defined as:

"And what is the individual who is a Dhamma-follower? There is the
  case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body
  those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, nor
  — having seen with discernment — are his fermentations ended. But with
  a [sufficient] measure of reflection through discernment he has come
  to an agreement with the teachings proclaimed by the Tathagata. And he
  has these qualities: the faculty of conviction, the faculty of
  persistence, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration,
  & the faculty of discernment. This is called an individual who is a
  Dhamma-follower.

In SN25, a Dhamma follower is defined as:

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted
  that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who
  has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people
  of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is
  incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in
  the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of
  passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

Housholder, interested,
faithful follower of the Buddha, those who have abounded to feel ashamed of what should be not ashamed for, when asked whom they follow, would tell that they follow the Buddha, his Dhamma and the Sangha of his good following disciples.
There is no fault at all, but the opposite, in declaring to be a follower, there is no fault at all to declare what ones does follow, and there is also no fault in declaring to have found a refuge, and no fault to declare any attaining and make shares toward the same, as long not done for the sake of honor and gains in the world and if done when asked after it.
There is off cause no need to speak out in cases which would harm ones ways to walk on the path of liberation, but even in such cases one should not lie but possible seek for ways to distract another interest if he/she might be after harm. Maybe a counter-question can release from such situations.
Or are you practicing the Uposatha of the Jains?
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

One need not attach to a label while utilizing it for practical purposes.
One need not attach to any word while utilizing them for communication with others.

Why not simply say you are devoted to non-attachment? Which, to my humble understanding, is the crux of "Buddhist" thinking. Why must we feel so compelled to answer these crude and absurd questions in the first place? Why is it anyone's business?

Perhaps people are just curious about one's religious practice. Doesn't necessarily mean they're questions are crude and absurd.

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


text:
How can merit be transferred?
When attend an event at the sangha I'm with (Triratna) we often transfer merit (puñña) at the end of it. So any good result of the meditation, ritual, dharma study etc... we give away. I know that this isn't something we have just invented. It's a practice that we have taken from other traditions.
What confuses me is merit can be given away. If merit is the fruits of my karma in what sense can this be transferred over to another being? How can someone else benefit from my skillful actions?

The mechanism behind merit transfer is this:

There is an element of Metta which benefits one self and other as it creates positive vibes. When you do good followed by strong volition to share this positivity this creates more positivity. Also this vibes can be sometimes telepathic.
Also being in some other realms (not all realms even then not always) can sense any positive vibes when we give Metta or think about then strongly (quasi telepathic). So when you recall a deceased person sometimes this becomes like a ping. If the other being develops appreciative joy in his mind to the actions that was done this itself creates the merit in the merit transfer.

So the traster has two elements:

Positive vibes you create around you has positive effects to others beings around
Appreciative joy of good and commendable action of others create positive mental Karma for the beings who do so

This instruments the merit transfer process.

Sorry to wake this thread up. But if someone looks at Cula-Saccaka Sutta, merit cannot be transferred:
"Aggivessana, whatever has come from (giving to) a recipient such as you — not without passion, not without aversion, not without delusion — that will be for the donors. Whatever has come from (giving to) a recipient such as me — without passion, without aversion, without delusion — that will be for you."

You are right, @B1100 . Such a deed of giving is ones own deed again.  How ever, for one taking (and thats up to the other) the food, a "share" of possibility to gain the same is given. It's usual under lay priests to make people believe that they actuall gain something by receiving a blesding or their "metta". The vibration and telephaty anecdotes have been introduced by pali-citers, to make people belive that they help them and so receive gifts.

The merit cannot be transferred through anyway to the passed one or man to man. But the merit can be shared to the departed one and also man to man. In the Tirokuddo Sutta, has no mentioned that the merit can be transferred to passed one or others. in this Sutta, in the last verse, the word 'puñña's has mentioned but that is acquired by the donor himself.
In the Nidāna of this sutta, has referred that the deceased person Peta (Ghost) can say the word, (Sadhu-3x). The word sadhu means well-done, share (Anumodana), can say 3 times by the Paradattabhojhi peta that is why they can earn merit themselves, I think it is crucially important to introduce here about the peta realm. In the peta world, there are 40 types of petas but, among them, only a type  of peta can earn merit based on who share through their relatives and the rest of  39 types of petas never get the chance to earn merit from their relatives because they are unable to utter the word (Sadhu). When the ghost's relatives accomplish virtuous activities then they respectfully utter sadhu 3 times by pouring water, at the same time the ghost enable to appreciate sadhu 3 times, that means after saying the word 'sadhu' the ghosts earn merit themselves, when the ghosts earn merit then the ghosts can be freed from ghosts lives. It is not the true fact that they receive the donor's transferring merit. The ghost acquires merits themselves through uttering the word Sadhu thrice. Here I can give a parallel of sharing: if a person lights a candle, then you also wish to delight your candle but, you have no lighter to lighting it, then other shares his candle's fire from his candle and you lighted your candle. When you took at the fire by comparing from others candle, then both candle's flems are similar. It is called the 'sharing', in this way merit can be shared to others but, merit cannot be Transferred to others. Buddhism never says merit can be transferred, it's only possible to share. Those who proclaim that the merit can transfer please cite the reference in where did the Buddha say in Tipitaka. Thank you.

You speak the truth... that very few are aware of - that of the 40 kinds of peta (Hungry Ghosts), only one kind of peta can earn merits based on which share through their relatives the rest 39 kinds of petas can never get chance to earn merits.

Sadhu, Bhante, sadhu @SapthaVisuddhi. How ever, the peta thing and why people do good to offer to the Sangha, is another. How ever, the peta issue shows well,why there are also less people who can take agiven share to join merits.

What I have learned from Theravada tradition (based on a Buddha's discourse) is that you can only transfer merits to beings in the hungry ghost realm, if a relative of yours has passed away and you have reasons to believe he/she is in the ghost realm (manifestations, signs etc.*) you can burn food, incense, clothes or donate food and clothes to the sangha transferring the merits to him/her.
*Many buddhist traditions (especially chinese) believe that circa 1 week after a relative has passed away he comes back looking for food and clothes if he/she is in the ghost realm, of course the natural thing to do is look for the relatives in the human realm to support them.
PS: After meditation sessions it is common to dedicate the merits to someone, however I think this is slightly different from actually transferring the merits.

The first paramita in Mahayana is paramita of generosity. And what generosity could we talk about if we are keeping our merit to ourselves?
As many Buddhist practices, this transfer of merit thing works on multiple levels.
One of them is prophylactics against spiritual materialism. You don't want to get caught up in the idea of accumulating anything for your ego to feed on. In some sense Satdharma is about becoming a very decent, very sane person, like a very lucid grandma. This grandma does not dream of career or wealth or popularity anymore, she does not want to learn Haskell because it's so cool, she just clearly knows that to be a decent person, rather than being full of yourself, you have to keep your eyes open and only do what makes sense. So instead of assuming this notion of accumulation, you could say: "Ok, what else do I need to drop?"
Aside from giving away one's merit there is also a parallel practice: of taking on blame -- if you pay attention you can feel how both of these relieve the energy tension. You could say these two are quintessential Mahayana practices towards starving the ego. The same idea is utilized in Tonglen meditation: we breath in all the suffering of the world and breath out happiness, for all sentient beings to enjoy. Another similar practice is e.g. when you're cold, to wish that you are taking on a piece of suffering some unfortunate beings experience in the Freezing Hell, and when you are spacing out in front of the fireplace to send that happiness to all spaces and times that need it.
This is all part of Bodhicitta, generating Buddha's mindset.

This originated in the observation that to rejoice in other successes was a virtuous deed. So if I did something well, in the Buddhist sense, I don't know, maybe I ordained into the sangha, I could send you a post card and you would be happy to know about it. At that point my merit lead to you gaining more merit. (Wikipedia said so, I don't have the link at the moment)
That sort of merit transfer eventually turned into a semi-magical substance you could earn and donate to the needy like money.
I don't know if it has any support, but I see it as sort of a practice that allows one to not take credit for what good things you've done (especially if you are surrounded by people with fragile egos who feel bad whenever they see someone more accomplished then themselves) and if you have a Mahayana bent, to refocus on why you were doing meritorious things-- i.e. we do meritorious things to gain enlightenment, but we're not enlightened until everyone is enlightened.

The postcard analogy is a good example. Also that many look at it like a currency like substance which you can bater. +1

Here is a quote on the transfer of merit. Its discussed what the benefits are and how the transfer is done. The quote is from the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda, p. 409-410:

The Significance of Transference of Merits to the Departed
"ACCORDING to Buddhism, good deeds or ‘acts of merit’ bring happiness to the doer both in this world and in the hereafter. Acts of merit are also believed to lead towards the final goal of everlasting happiness. The acts of merit can be performed through body, speech or mind. Every good deed produces ‘merit’ (store of positive spiritual well being) which accumulates to the ‘credit’ of the doer. Buddhism also teaches that the acquired merit can be transferred to others; it can be shared vicariously with others. In other words, the merit is ‘transferable’ and so can be shared with other persons. The persons who receive the merit can be either living or departed ones.
The method for transferring merits is quite simple. First some good deeds are performed. The doer of the good deeds has merely to wish that the merit gained accrues to someone in particular. This wish can be purely mental or it can be accompanied by an expression of words.
The wish could be made with the beneficiary being aware of it. When the beneficiary is aware of the act or wish, then a mutual ‘rejoicing in’ merit takes place. Here the beneficiary becomes a participant of the original deed by associating him or herself with the deed done. If the beneficiary identifies him or herself with both the deed and the doer, he or she can sometimes acquire even greater merit than the original doer, either because the elation is greater or because the appreciation of the value of the deed is based on an understanding of Dharma. Buddhist texts contain several stories of such instances.
The ‘joy of transference of merits’ can also take place with or without the knowledge of the doer of the meritorious act. All that is necessary is for the beneficiary to feel gladness in the heart when he or she becomes aware of the good deed. If one wishes, one can express joy by saying ‘sadhu’ which means ‘well done’. What is being done is creating a kind of mental or verbal applause. In order to share the good deed done by another, what is important is that there must be actual approval of the deed and joy arising in the beneficiary’s heart.
  Even if so desired, the doer of a good deed cannot prevent another’s ‘rejoicing in the merit’ because he or she has no power over another’s thoughts. According to the Buddha, in all actions, thought is what really matters. Transference is primarily an act of the mind.
To transfer merit does not mean that a person is deprived of the merit originally acquired from his or her good deed. On the contrary, the very act of ‘transference’ is a good deed in itself and hence enhances the merit already earned".

Edit: Here is a audio dhamma talk on the 10 pāramīs by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. The first perfection of giving might provide further information to your question.

According to the Theravadian Buddhist tradition, I find it difficult to fathom the principle of accumulating 'Merit' or 'Punya kamma', as well as the popular practice of transferring 'merits' to one's departed loved ones.
Like many other things in Buddhist practices and rituals, 'Punya kamma' also has the hallmark of a vestigial remnant of Hinduism.
Accumulation of merit has minimal input on purification of one's mind, which is the cornerstone of the Buddha-dhamma. There is mystic and a degree of 'lobha' when one collect merits hoping a better life, as practised and often preached today. Secondly, why make a case for one's relatives as there supposed to be 'No Self'?

Hello Dr Ariya and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

This is more of a question than an answer... it doesn't really answer the asker's question.

first what is merit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_(Buddhism)

It is that which accumulates as a result of good deeds, acts, or
  thoughts and which carries over throughout the life or the subsequent
  incarnations.

One approach toward merit is that it is like an award or increase in the ledger (chinese see link above) - these are both difficult things to give away because we are not able to touch them or even be sure they are really there.
Another idea about merit is that it is the feeling and awareness of the Buddha nature that results from meditation, helping others, offering or dedicating the fruits of our life and consciousness to helping others.
The reason that makes sense to me is that we give or offer this type of merit to all sentient beings because this brings us closer to the intentions of the Buddha nature, to help all and ask for nothing.

Here the question has been asked: how can merit be transferred?
But most of the commentators are commented out of the question. do not say how to transfer or whether merit can be transferred or not.
What are the main differences between Theravada and Mahayana?
Answer: There are three main differences between Theravada and Mahayana. they are as follows: the Mahayana strongly believe that the Buddha nature, Bodhisattva path and Transfer of Merit.  which Theravada does not follows.

As seeing that there seems to be no good and right answer in regard of what "sharing merits" actually mean, my person thought of "sharing his merits" and let those possible to take, let be part. Not sure if the original questioner here has Nissaya (condition), to have even physical part on it.
Sharing merits does not mean, even if believed, that one can make a share of ones good deeds done, so that the fruit of it falls to the person he likes to give.

Beings are owner of THEIR action, heir of their actions...

So what one does to possible give other the chance to give causes for future good fruits, to gain also merits, is to let others be part on it.
This is made by either:

inviting them to take part "come, join to..."
tell them about done "yesterday I made Dana...", "I meditate 1h every day..."
publish ones deeds of merits
give talks on merits
act meritorious, so that others may see

...and so on.
What ever being has one one hand the "physical Nissaya (condition)", means get physical in touch of it, and the "mental Nissaya", means capable to receive it by heart, is touched by it, takes in that way, mental, or physical and mental part on it, with joy, rejoices with it, has gained a share on your merits.
A being not in the physical (incl. fine physical/material) or mental, or both, condition, can never take part on your merits.
That means that a person, not attentive for good deeds, not seeing the gain you accumulate, or accumulated, sees no value, will not have the possibility to take on your given oppotunity.
Your gain on dedicating, sharing merits, let other take part, conteracts your greed in regard you merits and is anyhow an additional gain for you.
Especially when sharing merits where being are not attentive, even aversive of good deeds, in bearing critic, losing reputation under them, set you out to be criticised to like to lift your self..., all this giving up of wordily reputations, are reason for additional merits.
Having gained, heard, seen about good deeds, and knowing the joy ofhaving part on such, you like, out of compassion, out of sympathy, other have the same possibility.
You are optimistic that other being had made merits in the past, so that they are able to take your gift. If they have have Nissaya with the Dhamma, Upanissaya (strong condition, karmic "destiny" with you and words of wise) who knows?
On places where being are gathering who strongly seek after gross food and have never enough, in the peta-realm or in internet (to give a graspable sample), its difficult to share merits. Beings are to much focused on gross food, signs, sounds... knowledge, ideas, fine material gain and reputation.
That's way aside of knowledge, such as sharing merits, approving, expressions of joy, mudita... is seldom seen. Sharing merits goes agains business, gain and consuming and liberates.
Joy is one of the pre-conditions for concentration, joy with what is worthy to rejoice with it, the condition for right concentration and this the condition for liberation. Without right joy, no progress on the path.
May the merits done by me here, benefit all being, may those capable to rejoice with it, gain highes concentrations, path and fruits, with support of it, may the Devas inform those who could not see or hear from it.
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for use of commercial purposes and other wordily gains but intended and bound to awakening and liberation, and so good shared.)

"Can merit be given away?"

You can, but not in a conventional sense. Truth is no merit can just be given away.
You are the owner of your merit. The maker of your merit. The acquirer of your merit.
Merit can only be acquired by actions.

"If merit is the fruits of my karma in what sense can this be
  transferred over to another being?"

Knowing the above truths, merit can be transferred to other beings by influencing them to do actions themselves, thus making their own kamma and acquiring merit with the help of your influence over their actions.
The truth is, no transfer of merit is happening nor you are giving your merit to them. It is just you influencing the other being to do actions with which the intended merit is acquired by that being.


text:
Can Buddhism be viewed as a threat to the capitalist way of life?
As capitalism depends on the desire to consume (the more you consume the better), is it fair to say that Buddhism goes against capitalism?
Or does anyone thinks that Buddhism can coexist very well with capitalism?

Why the downvote, I'm curious, is that an inappropriate question? Please let me know so I can try to adapt it, I think it is an interesting topic as Buddhism is gaining momentum in the west, the more we understand it the better we can debate with our friends/relatives.

+1, I think it's an interesting question, except maybe a bit opinion-based...

You are very kind my friend, I always admire your great mahayana answers, I do follow Theravada, but I really like your point of view, they are always useful

-1 because "capitalism" may just mean:

Paying for what you buy;
Working for your pay;
Choosing your work and choosing what you want to buy;
A method to budget how much investment is made in new business.
Your question seems to be a crude caricature of capitalism (perhaps say "consumer economy" instead). In any case, the question seems to be more about capitalism (more specifically, your caricature of the "capitalist way of life") than about Buddhism; invites subjective/opinionated/off-topic answers; and IMO it's hard to see how or to whom any answers to this question could be useful.

HI Chris, Buddhism is spreading in traditional capitalist countries, so this is a question any buddhist can face, I did not include any criticism or personal opinion on capitalism, I just sad it depends on a lot of consumption to grow, please friend try not to see caricatures where there are none, I am not judging anyone. Anyway, thanks fir elaborating.

There was a great video by a bukkhu when he explained how meditators could lose interest in running a business because the greed would decrease and they would see no real purpose on making profit (something like that) that was an wonderful video to reflect about, but I can't find it. I think Buddhism can coexist with capitalism but its not that simple

@konrad01 I have seen no caricature in your question.

+1 but agree that reference to "consumer economy" instead of "captialism" would be better.

@konrad01 I'd love to watch that video if you find it. I lost interest in my silicon valley career before I encountered Buddhism, after pursuing it for a while and finding it pointless. Once I lost my need for external validation through wealth and success and any associated fear, I had no reason to put up with the stress and the trouble. Though if I had a family, or other reasons to stay, I might have stayed on.

Buddhism is a threat to the universe... the answer to the famous "what would happen if everyone became enlightened?" is that the universe would cease to exist.
In the meantime, sure, the more people in a society practicing Buddhism the less the demand for new products, prices drop, people have less money, less spending, even less demand, and so on.
On the other hand, I don't think this would immediately threaten capitalism as a philosophy, in the sense that barter could still carry on unimpeded; truly necessary items could still be shared and traded, and a free market would probably do well in such a society.
I imagine there would be many socialist aspects to the society as well, involving health care, social assistance, etc. But would the society incline towards communism? I doubt it - communism seems too structured to me; people would probably just mind their own business, sharing or trading as needed.
I've always thought that the only problem with capitalism is greed. I'm not an economist, by any means, but my short answer is no, I don't think it would be a threat to capitalism.
Economic materialism, sure.

I think the main problems with capitalism are (1) formation of monopolies that abuse their position and (2) resource depletion or the "tragedy of the commons"

I would like to add in @Adam 's point - 3. accumulation of personal property.

but these problems would be ameliorated by Buddhist capitalists...

@sangharsh why is accumulation of personal property a problem?

Capitalism isn't the problem, lack of generosity is. Markets, rich merchants and traders existed in the Buddha's time, and Buddha didn't censure them. In fact, Anadapindika the trader who fed the poor, was much praised for his generosity. As for the universe ending by all becoming arahats, that is a long way off.

Buddhism will be an enhancer for any social order may it be capitalist or otherwise. The reason being is when you start practicing Buddhist your moral base and value system will go up. These are the 1st grouping in the Noble 8 Fold Path or the 1st item in the 3 Fold Training.
In society we have contacts and a legal framework to support enforce social order with relations to commerce. This process will become more efficient.
In Business (or in any other matter also) decision making should be well balanced proactive than reactive. The next two items in the Buddhist practice will help towards cultivating this since you will develop a balanced and controlled mind.
Right decision making without / reduced hate or greed will mean there will be no excesses. This does not mean to accept austerity which intern will in reducing consumption and bringing down the economy. People will live within ones means.
Also the Buddha preached you should generate wealth though right means and put strong efforts to earn and protect your hard earned wealth. If you so not have some comfort as a householder you will not practice the Dhamma.
Lack of greed should not viewed to reducing the effort to progress, but it is the lack of grasping / attachment to the outcome and reacting to it. E.g. you have Rolex and it break the question is whether you have a hurt feeling or sensation in you or not. It does not mean that (as a lay person) you should not have one if you can afford one.
Buddhism will help towards better and well organised society as a whole what ever system may it be Capitalist or otherwise.
As a final note in Buddhist literature reference to economy, social order and finances appear before Dhamma. (Always Artha then followed by Dhamma). Historically in Buddhist Culture (may be in even Hindu Culture also) it is accepted you have to give prominence to Artha before Dhamma. Without Artha you cannot do Dhamma. May reason behind breaking morality and ethics is the lack of prosperity. So always you have to aim for prosperity then morality will be easy. Also generosity and charity (Dana) will help towards building a better socially as a whole. If you look at America which is one of the most capitalist countries, there is a lot of charities and charitable activities. These will also become more streamlines, efficient and effective in a Buddhist context.

There are ways Buddhism differs from modern thought capitalism where there is room for improvement from what has been found in Buddhist texts.
One main drawback of capitalism is that capital is not available to some who might want to start a business with social or economic impact. In Buddhism one of the commendable action of the King is to give grain to the subjects. In modern times like might be like giving Grants, Subsidies and Venture capital. In modern capitalism this is frowned upon, inevitably due to the financial crisis the government has resort to doing this through Quantitative Easing (QE). So some of the ancient wisdom seam to be helping revive the economy than being a threat to it.
Financial section is the backbone of capitalist economy can means to influence monetary policy and money circulation. But the benefits are disproportionately towards the Financial Services sector. Hence the government look into means to help more of the Small and Medium industries and other sectors through Grants, Subsidiaries and infusion of capital as Venture Capital investments, etc. Those are frowned upon by pure capitalists this is the way forward as this is one step that is needed in bringing unity by a Universal Monarch.

Excellent point linking capitalism with the noble eightfold path, I agree Buddhism has a huge potential to benefit a capitalist society, this is what I have been looking for, a great way to address the issue in a debate

What you may be implying is that greedy, self centered activity that values winning at any price with utter disregard for others needs is inconsistent with Buddhism and most other religious tenets.
I cannot find the exact quote, but the Dalai Lama said that he is not against capitalism, but to earn lots of money and then use the money with socialist's principles to help others.
Many people find their calling in business and are very successful. Some of them like Bill Gates set up foundations to help many people.
If a Buddhist is on the path of business, why not succeed at business and then succeed at caring for others?

I think this is a good point of view, thank you

I find it non judgmental - all things can be used for the benefit of all with the right intention.

I don't know a lot about economics and the various "isms", but Capitalism has accomplished things in a couple hundred years that probably never would have happened otherwise. Chief among those are improved means of providing food, safe water (which has prevented more illness than all medical advancements combined) and medical knowledge. Faster, safer travel makes many things possible. If you can go somewhere to learn and practice the Dharma, this brings untold benefits to all. Consider most of the world 100 years ago or even today: the vast majority did not even have iron or the wheel.
There has to be a certain minimal amount of beneficial activity to provide a better life for many people, and Capitalism seems to provide the environment for that, facilitating research and technology that no other system has produced. As Robert M. Pirsig said in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: "From that agony of bare existence to modern life can be soberly described only as upward progress, and the sole agent for this progress is quite clearly reason itself."
Reason alone is not sufficient: you need money to do anything in today's world. If you have a better method, I would like to hear of it. That said, the ills of Capitalism need to be addressed, after recognizing that it is worth improving it. This is where Buddhism can be most helpful today. Right Livelihood is right there in the middle of the Eight-fold Path. Effort, Mindfulness and Concentration all fit in to performing work, and Aspiration is the way of defining goals. I see no conflict.

This answer doesn't say much about Buddhism, and very little about "consumerism".

oh holy beans. I'm about to go radical here and diverge from the dalai lama's take, but I can't speak from someone else's perceptions, so here goes.
a system based on ever-increasing gains from a finite thing is inherently unsustainable. and lookie! does it kinda seem I'm right?
I'm fine with making a living (and more fine just living) but not with profit. because I would prefer to continue rather than dwindle from lack of food, water, and liveable weather, and prefer doing so among healthy people whose basic needs are met. the bible doesn't like profit either. it calls profit "usury."
nutshell: profit is taking more than you give.
profit is the essence of capitalism. you are looking to "capitalize" on what you encounter, to take from it to make yourself "bigger" if you will.
my experience in Buddhism and related things is that there's no need to fret over abstract things that are basically the water you, little fishie, swim in right now.
if you keep meditation, continue to refine your clear seeing of yourself and others, notice what happens when things are/aren't done, and how differences in doing/not doing get different results, notice how you feel after doing/skipping the things you do .... your views and habits will change to naturally reflect where you are at any given time. just as they change when you don't meditate,  but in ways that are more random and that you may not even like.
the only universe, the only sentient being, you can directly and fully perfect is you. and you are the system.
whatever it is "you" are, that is what touches and changes every single part of our world, aka "the world," reality, life.
as my teacher says, "just do your practice." people are all sorts of things. balance for living beings is a state  change that suits conditions at the time (homeostasis).
with clarity comes being more of what you are, be it student, statesman, horse trainer, layabout, kite maker, baby maker, musician, pizza guy. the title, like the name of a system, is just the moving form that contains a slice of life.
as a living being you will naturally be happiest with things that support life rather than suck it dry. if capitalism furthers living, how is it against Buddhism? if it does not, how will it continue to exist? beings are expressions of life. with clarity life flourishes. systems support life or fail to. our awareness is what decides.

Hi Iquanyin and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you add some paragraphs into your post and proof read it to correct grammar and spelling mistakes. The current state of the answer makes it difficult for other users to read. I tried to edit it and put paragraphs into but it was too difficult since i couldnt find any natural gaps to put the paragraphs.

I'm off grid with only a phone so I will fix it for you when I'm at an outlet. thanks for being polite. amazingly no doubt, I supported my family as an editor of nonfiction, el-hi, and trade books so I have a hunch how aht I call "mobile English" must feel to you: like a dog's ear flipped over. lack of paragraphs is because I wasn't sure I'd not inadvertently post before finishing (first post in the app, new phone.) typos: I just suck at mobile typing. OK. fix later today. :-)

"couldn't find any natural gaps:" me too! it's how my ADD mind rolls, dang it. I did my best tho. Hope it is more readable now.

Thanks for the explanation, and the new-and-improved formatting. Knowing the reason (i.e. that it's a mobile phone) makes it easier to 'read'.

I was hoping it would ease the pain. ;-)

Thank you for both the explanation and the editing. I think this is much better:)


text:
Where is the story of the non-returner who "sold" pots on the side of the road?
I'm trying to find a specific story in the Pali canon (or commentaries, probably), where an anagami who looks after his mother makes a living by firing pots and putting them out by the side of the road. When people go by, he says "take what you like, just leave some beans or rice, or whatever you think it's worth."
Anyone know where this story is found, or what the name of the anagami was?

Dear sir, this is so very interesting. Where I can I find other such similar stories from that era which are validated to be true? I think it gives a much better picture of the society during the time (or after) of Buddha. @yuttadhammo

There are many stories of previous eras that teach dharma principles. Are they historically true or are they teaching stories that teach the aspiring soul freedom? It is difficult to verify.

Here is the story you refer to
http://www.yellowrobe.com/practice/general/247-money-rules-for-buddhist-monks-and-nuns-by-dhamminda-bhikkhu.html

It is taught that even a layperson who is an anagami (non-returner)
  keeps the ten precepts naturally and does not accept or use money. For
  example the anagami Ghatikara was without gems, gold, silver, or
  money, and made his living by taking earth that had eroded from the
  river bank and making it into pots. These pots he left at the side of
  the road and anyone who wished could leave a suitable amount of rice
  or food and take the pots. In this way Ghatikara supported himself and
  his blind parents. (See Ghatikara Sutta of Majjhima Nikaya.)
This demonstrates how money is an impediment to enlightenment and how
  the truly enlightened do not use money. The above quotes all prove
  that the acceptance of money by monks is not a small fault, and that
  it can render a monk incapable of attaining Nibbana .

Thanks @soulsings for pointing me in the right direction; since I was looking for the Pali reference, here's the passage from the Ghatikara Sutta (MN 81):

“Then he said: ‘Venerable sir, have you a better supporter than I am?’—‘I have, great king. There is a market town called Vebhalinga where a potter named Ghaṭīkāra lives. He is my supporter, my chief supporter. Now you, great king, thought: “The Blessed One Kassapa, accomplished and fully enlightened, does not accept from me a residence for the Rains in Benares,” and you were very disappointed and sad; but the potter Ghaṭīkāra is not and will not be so. The potter Ghaṭīkāra has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. He abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sensual pleasures, from false speech, and from wine, liquor, and intoxicants, which are the basis of negligence. He has unwavering confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, and he possesses the virtues loved by noble ones. He is free from doubt about suffering, about the origin of suffering, about the cessation of suffering, and about the way leading to the cessation of suffering. He eats only one meal a day, he observes celibacy, he is virtuous, of good character. He has laid aside gems and gold, he has given up gold and silver. He does not dig the ground for clay with a pick or with his own hands; what has broken off riverbanks or is thrown up by rats, he brings home in a carrier; when he has made a pot he says: “Let anyone who likes set down some selected rice or selected beans or selected lentils, and let him take away whatever he likes. He supports his blind and aged parents. Having destroyed the five lower fetters, he is one who will reappear spontaneously [in the Pure Abodes] and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world.
-- MN 81 (Bodhi, trans)

Thank you for quoting the Pali passage. It uncovers more depth to the story.


text:
Where's the story in which the Buddha praised a non-returner for keeping the knowledge of his attainment private?
I'm trying to find a specific story in where the Buddha spoke about the attainment of one Anagami lay person with a group of monks while praising his good qualities. Later, when those monks went for alms at his place, they informed him that the Buddha had spoken about his attainment. Then he asked the monks, if there were any lay persons present when the Buddha revealed it. The monks reported this back to the Buddha when they returned to the temple. Then the Buddha praised him again and said that is also another good quality of him.
I've heard this story several times in sermons, when the question comes up, whether an enlightened being would reveal his attainment to others.

I suppose this virtue is called 'adhigama appiccatha'?

"I hope, sir, that there were no white-clad householders there."
"No, friend, there were no white-clad householders there."
"It's good, sir, that there were no white-clad householders there."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.023.than.html

Good to see you @Kavenga in the site.

And you too Suminda _/_

The Sappurisa Sutta also says,"Then again, a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal his own good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.'

This story seems similar to the one for which you search
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/disciples14.htm

Modesty, in particular, was evident in Hatthaka's character. While some take great pride in their wealth or are motivated by
  self-aggrandisement to convert others to the Dharma, Hatthaka was
  always quiet and unassuming. He did all he could to interest people in
  the Dharma purely out of concern for them, not to make a name for
  himself. On another occasion, when the monks told Hatthaka that the
  Buddha had praised his many good qualities, he said, "I hope there
  were no lay people present when the Lord did this." The monks assured
  him that there were none and later when they told this to the Buddha,
  he said, "Well done, well done. That man is genuinely modest. He does
  not like his good qualities to be known by others. Modesty is another
  of Hatthaka's good qualities."[ N10 ]

As background the following are present on the same page.

Another eminent lay disciple was Hatthaka of Alavi, a son of the ruler of Alavi. Hatthaka first met the Buddha as he was walking one
    winter evening. Surprised to see this lone ascetic in just one thin
    robe and sleeping on the hard ground, Hatthaka asked the Buddha, "Are
    you happy?" The Buddha replied, "Yes, I am happy." "But sir," Hatthaka
    asked, "the ground is hard and the wind is cold, how can you be
    happy?" The Buddha asked: "Despite living in a cosy, well-thatched
    house, with a comfortable bed and two wives to look after him, is it
    possible that due to greed, anger, fear or ambition that a man might
    feel unhappy?" "Yes," answered Hatthaka, "that is quite possible."
    "Well," said the Buddha, "I have got rid of all greed, anger, fear and
    ambition, so whether I sleep here or in a cosy house, I am always
    happy, always very happy.[ N8 ]

Hatthaka was famous not so much for his generosity or his knowledge of Dharma, but for his ability to attract people to the
  Dharma. Once he brought five hundred people, all obviously keen to
  practise the Dharma, to see the Buddha who asked him: "How do you
  manage to interest so many people in the Dharma?" Hatthaka answered:
  "Lord, I do it by using the four bases of sympathy, which you yourself
  taught me. When I know that someone can be attracted by generosity, I
  am generous. When I know that they can be attracted by kind words, I
  speak to them with kindness. When I know that they can be attracted by
  doing them a good turn, I do them a good turn, and when I know they
  can be attracted by treating them equally, I treat them with
  equality." Obviously, when people attended talks on Dharma organised
  by Hatthaka, they always received a warm personal welcome that made
  them feel liked and respected, and so they would come again, gradually
  getting interested in the Dharma. The Buddha praised Hatthaka for his
  skill. "Well done, Hatthaka, well done, this is the way to attract
  people." After Hatthaka had left, the Buddha said to the monks:
  "Consider it true that Hatthaka of Alavi is possessed of these eight
  marvellous and wonderful qualities. He has faith, virtue,
  conscientiousness and fear of blame, he is learned, generous, wise and
  modest."[ N9 ]

Thank you for the question.


text:
In simple words, how are body sensations linked to moods and feelings?
My teacher rightly emphasizes that sensations when observed equanimously will lead to eradication of suffering and he is very right. I have noticed a big change. But I just don't get the link between emotions and body sensations.
I can understand when I am angry there is heat like sensations immediately, on arousal there are certain sensations although these are kinda on the extreme side and may or May not take excessive meditation to practice. But what about boredom, depression, love, jealousy, greed and so on? Are these sensations linked to the body too? (Stupid question to ask I know since I have been practicing for years now) but I sense results by practice which is great. But on the level of functionality I don't get it.
I have read the mahasatipatthana sutta but I wish someone could explain it using normal terminology.

In simple words, emotion has three parts: the root, the stem, and the flower. The root is an imprint (samskara). The stem is a physical reaction. The flower is a psychosomatic sensation (vedana).
Emotion is a precursor of thought, it is like a very fuzzy/blurry thought. Before humans, animals already had some basic intelligence -- that's emotions. When a deer is grazing, her brain is watching for signs of danger. When she hears sudden noise, her brain creates a basic impulse to run away. The heart beats faster, the lungs breath faster, the muscles of the stomach contract, the legs start shaking. A basic formula like "sudden noise == danger" is an imprint or preconception -- the root of the emotion. The physical reaction is the stem of the emotion. And the way the physical reaction (heart, breathing, muscles) feels to you -- is vedana, the flower.
If you inspect your psychosomatic environment, you will surely notice subtle sensations in and around your chest, stomach, forehead, eyes, hands, wrists, feet etc. Subjectively, these feelings are often not located on the surface of, or inside the body, but rather "in the air" around it. Some of the emotions most obviously accompanied by such sensations are worry, urge, longing, resentment, irritation but also the positive ones e.g. love, fondness.
If we examine the root of the emotion more carefully, we can see that it works through evaluation (appraisal) by the mind of the present situation, against the basic assumptions and expectations (formulas, imprints, preconceptions) about how things are supposed to be. If the actual situation ("is") seems to be matching the expected situation ("should"), a positive emotion is generated (sukha), and if the two mismatch -- a negative emotion is generated (dukkha). By dropping the preconception, we prevent (nirodha) the emotion from arising.
For example, if you fall in love with a woman, and want to be with her, but she loves another man, and does not want to be with you -- you may feel depressed. If you look carefully at your somatic sensations, you may notice e.g. burning in your chest or dull pain in your belly etc. When you stare at this burning/pain long enough, you will eventually realize that it is caused by a mismatch between the mental picture of being with her, on one hand, and her not being available, on the other hand. This mismatch is called unsatisfied thirst, or tanha. If you keep looking, you will realize that the root of the emotion is your preconception that e.g. the woman has a perfect character on account of the way she moves, smiles, laughs, and flips her hair. (When you keep visualizing those attributes of her, and keep mentally connecting those with her - fictional - perfection, that is called "feeding the preconception", or upadana.) In order to stop suffering, you have to clearly see the preconception, and let go of it.
This is why Buddha taught kayagata-smrti (mindfulness rooted in the body) and anapana-smrti (mindfulness of breathing) -- because the root would be too hard to see under the ground, but the flower is highly visible. Once you notice the flower, you can start tracing it down to its roots (preconceptions) in meditation, and by extracting the roots (letting go of attachments, dropping identifications, dismissing the formulas, dissolving samskaras) you liberate from dukkha. Then you attain the state of suchness (tathata), when all your experience is basically sukha, because in suchness your "is" always matches your "should". When this practice matures, you go beyond dichotomy of right-and-wrong, beyond sukha-and-dukkha, and even beyond the beyond -- then you become completely rooted in tathata, and become what's called a tathagata.
Anyway, to get back to your question, emotions are always accompanied by sensations, however subtle. Somatic sensation is the most visible component of emotion. (The other component of emotion -- the mental obscuration or klesha -- is usually invisible, because it obscures the very ability to see oneself objectively.) So sensations, especially ones in the diaphragm area, but also in lower abdomen, throat, and forehead, are great windows into the "subconscious" mind.

The link between sensation and mind comes from what we are made of. We are made of the 5 aggregates of which sensation is one element. Suffering is a result of clinging to these aggregates. To overcome stress you have to get rid of the clinging to the aggregates. The way to to do this is through the 3 Fold Practice through which you gain the understanding of the
4 Noble Truths, The 3 Marks of Existence and Dependent Origination by developing the qualities required for enlightenment in a balanced manner and subduing the hindrances and defilements. Finally destroying the fetters.
Your mind is one sense door or a faculty which make up a being. When it when some though or mental content comes in contact with the the mind sense door some sensation arises in your body. (E.g. like when you get angry. You get a through which you form a perception to which you react for future wish for sensations.) If it pleasant you try to grasp on to it. If it is unpleasant you try to get rid of it. Or it can be what you want to be or not get yourself into in the future. (Taṇhā) Based on this clinging arrises. This is due to the ignorance. If you are have equanimity at this cycle you you can break cycle of dependent origination from this point. Main thing is you do not react. It is the mental reaction that keeps you in stress or misery.


text:
14 questions left unanswered
I am questioning myself and my practice of answering questions and was stopped by the following website.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/interferences/fourteen_questions_which_buddha_rem.html

There are fourteen unspecified points (lung-du ma-bstan-pa bcu-bzhi),
  which are points about which Buddha did not specify an answer when
  asked. Often this set of fourteen is referred to as the “fourteen
  questions to which Buddha remained silent.”
The Mahayana Version To those who believe in a true findably existent
  “me” or “self” (bdag, Skt. atman) and a true findably existent
  universe, Buddha did not answer when they asked are the “I” or the
  “self” and the universe:
eternal, not eternal, since they undergo gross impermanence at the
  time of their destruction, as both, in the sense that some beings and
  their environments, like the Creator Brahma and his heaven, are
  eternal; while all else, such as his creations, are not eternal and
  end at the time of their destruction, neither, since it is impossible
  to  know?  Are “I’s” or “selves” and the universe:
finite, infinite, both finite and infinite, in the sense that limited
  beings (sentient beings) are infinite in number, but the universe is
  finite in size, neither, since it is impossible to know?  Does the “I”
  or the “self” of a Buddha:
continue to exist after death, not continue after death, both, in the
  sense that the body does not continue, but the life-force (srog) does,
  neither?  Buddha did not answer these because there is no such thing
  as a true findably existent “me” or “ self” for either limited beings
  (sentient beings) or a Buddha, and no such thing as a true findably
  existent universe. Therefore, there can be no question whether such
  things are eternal or not eternal, or finite or infinite. It is like
  asking do rabbit-horns, turtle-hair or chicken-lips last forever or
  only a limited time. If Buddha said the “me,” and so on are eternal,
  these people would fall to the position of eternalism. If he said they
  are not eternal, they would fall to the position of nihilism, since
  they would not understand his answer. Therefore, it was more skillful
  not to specify an answer at all.
To those who believe in a true findably existent body and life-force,
  Buddha did not answer when they asked are the body and life-force:
the same entity, totally separate and different entities?  He remained
  silent for a similar reason, since they would only misunderstand
  anything he said.

The question is in 2 parts, but they are really part of the same question of how questions and answers benefit our practice.
A) Do you agree that the Buddha did not address these points in his sermons?
(B) How does this questioning and answering aid our practice that moves toward awakening and what benefit can be derived from asking the type of questions we ask and answering the type of questions we answer?

I'm a little confused about (B). Are you asking, in general, about the purpose of making questions and providing answers about buddhism? Or are you asking, eg. how would "after death a Tataghata exists?" aid our practice?

I was wondering how the Buddha would deal with questions as we raise here. Is there any indication that Shakyamuni encouraged free and open discussions? Tibetan Buddhism oftens have debate like discussions with the monks to sharpen their understanding.

"Is there any indication that Shakyamuni encouraged free and open discussions?" -- a voluminous part of the discourses are debates, questions and answers, between Shakyamuni, disciples, lay followers and members of other sects.

Thiago, do you have an example of discussions and debates that you could link to? Better yet if you could find any that are about the 14 unanswered questions. Add an answer if you do.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html

Thiago has provided the link above. Here is a quote from that link toward the end of the quote.  ""Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,"' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata."   From what I read from this quote the Buddha intentionally did not address these issues because they do not give aid to our practice. Closer to the conclusion we must avoid these issues.

and further quotes from that link "So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'..."And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

I think the answer is in the article. They were not answered because they were formulated around finding the consequences of premises which are not true, the findably existent self or universe.
There is at best no sense in answering them "I believe the moon to be made of cheese: is it Wensleydale or Gorgonzola?"; more likely they would lead to misunderstandings and cause suffering.

I agree with Suminda - Great answer which deserves +1.