text:
Did the Buddha make any reference to Krishna and Gita?
As Hinduism was a prominent religion of the Buddha's time (though not in today's unified form ), Buddha must have learnt about the Gita and krishna's philosophy. In fact, the Buddha's karma philosophy and the notion of 'skillful karma' ( performing actions as duty without getting attached to it) seem to be too close to Krishna's karma yoga philosophy to find any difference.
Is there any reference to the Gita or Krishna in Buddhist texts?

The dates given in Wikipedia's Bhagavad Gita article, for example,

Professor Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the likely date of composition.

... and,

The so-called "Hindu Synthesis" emerged during the early Classical period (200 BCE - 300 CE) of Hinduism.[21][7][22] According to Alf Hiltebeitel, a period of consolidation in the development of Hinduism took place between the time of the late Vedic Upanishad (ca. 500 BCE) and the period of the rise of the Guptas (ca. 320–467 CE) which he calls the "Hindu Synthesis", "Brahmanic Synthesis", or "Orthodox Synthesis".[21] It developed in interaction with other religions and peoples:

The emerging self-definitions of Hinduism were forged in the context of continuous interaction with heterodox religions (Buddhists, Jains, Ajivikas) throughout this whole period, and with foreign people (Yavanas, or Greeks; Sakas, or Scythians; Pahlavas, or Parthians; and Kusanas, or Kushans) from the third phase on [between the Mauryan empire and the rise of the Guptas].

... and in Wikipedia's Krishna article,

Worship of the deity Krishna, either in the form of deity Krishna or in the form of Vasudeva, Bala Krishna or Gopala can be traced to as early as the 4th century BC.

... compared with the dates in the Gautama Buddha article,

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.

... suggest to me it's possible that maybe the Buddha lived a little bit earlier (e.g. 100 years or more) than when Krishna became famous and when the Gita was composed.
If it's true that the Gita was written during a "synthesis" which occurred as a reaction to competition from Buddhism and Jainism and so on, that could explain why there's no commentary from the Buddha (i.e. that he lived slightly before then, and so any commentary would be anachronistic).
There are Buddhist suttas which recount the Buddha's talking with brahmins.
In summary the first sentence of the OP (i.e. "As Hinduism was a prominent religion of the Buddha's time (though not in today's unified form), Buddha must have learnt about the Gita and krishna's philosophy.") might be a slightly incorrect assumption.

Krishna was famous before Buddha. Mahābhārata whose hero is Krishna dates back to before Buddha but in it Krishna was mostly a war strategist. Bhagavad Gita might have been written down much after the time of Buddha to disseminate the messages of the Upanishads to the larger public.

@ChrisW Thank you for the detailed response.

In fact, the Buddha's karma philosophy and the notion of 'skillful karma' ( performing actions as duty without getting attached to it) seem to be too close to Krishna's karma yoga philosophy to find any difference.

The Buddhist skillful Karma is not to do any action as a duty without attachment but to perform action with volitions which contain the roots of non aversion, non craving and non ignorance.
In Buddhis volition is the forerunner of Karma. If the volition is good, i.e., roots of non aversion, non craving and non ignorance, then the results would be also good.

Is there any reference to the Gita or Krishna in Buddhist texts?

I don't think there are.

Could you please elaborate the answer on the first point?

Brilliantly expounded.

OP: Is there any reference to the Gita or Krishna in Buddhist texts?

No. Only the three Vedas (presumably Rg, Yajur and Sama Veda) are mentioned in Buddhist texts (see MN 95). No other Hindu texts are mentioned.

OP: In fact, the Buddha's karma philosophy and the notion of 'skillful
karma' ( performing actions as duty without getting attached to it)
seem to be too close to Krishna's karma yoga philosophy to find any
difference.

TL;DR:
Actually, the two are very different.
Krishna taught to perform your duty and do not be attached to the fruit of actions. So, if your duty is as a warrior, then you should fight the battle but not be attached to the fruit of actions i.e. victory or loss.
The Buddha taught that intention (or volition) is the most important element of karma. It's impossible to fight in battle without having one's intention or volition tainted with aversion and delusion. Please see this answer.
Detailed quotes:
What did Lord Krishna teach?
From Bhagavad Gita 2.31-38:

Besides, considering your duty as a warrior, you should not waver.
Indeed, for a warrior, there is no better engagement than fighting for
upholding of righteousness. O Parth, happy are the warriors to whom
such opportunities to defend righteousness come unsought, opening for
them the stairway to the celestial abodes. If, however, you refuse to
fight this righteous war, abandoning your social duty and reputation,
you will certainly incur sin. People will speak of you as a coward and
a deserter. For a respectable person, infamy is worse than death. The
great generals who hold you in high esteem will think that you fled
from the battlefield out of fear, and thus will lose their respect for
you. Your enemies will defame and humiliate you with unkind words,
disparaging your might. Alas, what could be more painful than that? If
you fight, you will either be slain on the battlefield and go to the
celestial abodes, or you will gain victory and enjoy the kingdom on
earth. Therefore arise with determination, O son of Kunti, and be
prepared to fight. Fight for the sake of duty, treating alike
happiness and distress, loss and gain, victory and defeat. Fulfilling
your responsibility in this way, you will never incur sin.

And what did the Buddha teach?
From Yodhajiva Sutta (SN 42.3):

Then Yodhajiva the headman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he
said to the Blessed One: "Lord, I have heard that it has been passed
down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior
strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
devas slain in battle.' What does the Blessed One have to say about
that?"
"Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."
A second time... A third time Yodhajiva the headman said: "Lord, I
have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching
lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in
battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving
& exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after
death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' What
does the Blessed One have to say about that?"
"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his
mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May
these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or
destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay
him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called
the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as
this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others
then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting
himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he
is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong
view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I
tell you: either hell or the animal womb."
When this was said, Yodhajiva the headman sobbed & burst into tears.
[The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't get past you by
saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.'"
"I'm not crying, lord, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but
simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time
by that ancient teaching lineage of warriors who said: 'When a warrior
strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
devas slain in battle.'
"Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright
what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one
who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes
could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many
lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One
for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Community of monks. May the
Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for
refuge, from this day forward, for life."

there is this sutta...
the footnote says:
The "Dark One" or Kanha (Sanskrit: Krishna), is another name for Mara. He is the Indian Cupid (Kamadeva) and personifies sensual passions
Also in this sutta it says:

"When all the Devas headed by Inda (Sakka), and all Brahmas headed by Haritta had come, there came the host of Mara. Lo! The folly of Mara, the Murky One, (Kanha).[15]

how can it be that the one venerated by so many as supreme godhead, aka lord krishna is also known as evil Mara?

Mara and Krishna may be completely different persons. Please see Ghata Jataka for a possible Krishna story.

Some worshipped Siva instead of Krishna: Speaking of Siva has a line of verse, "How can the slaves of the Bodiless God, Desire, know the way our Lord's Men move or the stance of their standing?" The footnote for that says, "The god of love, Kama, once tried to distract Siva's penance. Siva opened his fiery third eye and burned him down. From then on, Love became anaṅga, the bodiless or limbless one. Siva's burning down of the god of Desire is the ideal paradigm for all ascetic conquest of temptations."

sorry , by mistake i down-voted. instead of up-votting.. and I can t change it now.

There are many maligned statement about other religion in tripitaks. particularly about ajivika, jains and hindus.. I  assume they are added later out of animosity.

Just because a name like "Krishna" is used, there is no reason to think that this is talking about the same figure. Many of the deities of the Hindus show up in Buddhist literature with names that are different from the popular ones today. For instance, in the Mahāyāna sūtras, Viṣṇu appears as "Nārāyaṇa."

@Caoimhghin sure whatever...

@ChrisW yes, shiva is rad...

¯_(ツ)_/¯ "Whatever, whatever," the wood-pecker cries. Still, the bark on the tree's not as soft as the skies...

From here: "Māra bears many names in Pāli Literature, chief of them being Kanha, Adhipati, Antaka, Namuci and Pamattabandhu." Kanha in Pali literature is Mara, not the Hindu Lord Krishna.

@ruben2020 that is very interesting...puts the "Padhana Sutta: The Great Struggle"  in a different context...given G.Buddha's history, his state of mind prior to enlightenment, near-death experience, etc...great find..


text:
Eating meat and buying meat
Buddha said to his disciples (monks), meat can be eaten if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. Eating meat is different from killing animal, it's clear.
Lay people on the other side do not obtain meat like monks do, lay people buy meat. The money then goes to meat seller and abattoir. Is this the same as "Causing another to kill"?

Related: Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?

I've a question if selling food with meat (ex:- Pastries) is also a sin coz selling meat falls under incorrect livelihood?

Buddhist ethics is the basis to develop wisdom and mastery over the mind. If there are no unwholesome Karmic results you cannot collect your mind to develop concentration as wholesome results give present experiences than unpleasant which is more distracting in meditation.
In the above case through you can argue that you remote form of indirectly kill in buying meat you do not create the type unwholesome roots associated with killing in the mind which results in unpleasant experiences later. Making others kills which has Karmic repercussion would be instead of you killing you order someone else to kill or bring hims to such a state that he will kill intending that he would kill.
Leaving aside killing, if you take ethics too far then you cannot live. E.g. your food and drinks do have microbes. Antibiotics kill microbes. I have heard once a monk with supernormal powers, after filtering water, saw that there were beings too small to be seen by the naked eye still in the water hence if you are strictly not to harm the you cannot ever eat or drink. The advice received was do not use your Jhanic powers to see if there are microbes in the water.
If you are vegetarian well and good, but if you are not, this is not a hindrance to develop mastery over the mind or wisdom and such action does not have karmic repercussions.

But there is intention to purchase meat. In Dhammika Sutta Buddha said: "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world (Dhammika Sutta). I don't want take ethics too far but what does "don't cause another to kill" mean to you? Why paying for meat is not just another way of seeing "cause another to kill"?

"If there are not of unwholesome Karmic results you cannot collect your mind to develop concentration." Does it mean you need unwholesome kamma to develop concentration?

Missed some of your points. If someone kills other being because he is ordered by someone. Does the intention of killing belong to the killer himself that will be experienced by him rather than the orderer?

Both of them. The person ordering will have the karma and also person executing will need the volition to kill otherwise he cannot execute the order.

but do you think the full blown karmic consequence will only be experienced by the murderer alone (although he does it with great reluctance) since the person who orders him does not do the actual killing?

If there is great reluctance the power may diminish a little. Perhaps these can be a new set of question as comments are not intended for extensive discussions on SE but meant to clarify or enhance the meaning of something in the post.

Both Sankha and Suminda have provided great answers but could not vote two of them.

If the lay person orders an animal to be killed, he breaks the first precept. Simply buying meat that is available in the market does not break the precept no matter who profits from it.
Following conditions have to be met for it to be broken.
i) The being must be alive.
ii) There must be knowledge that it is a living being.
iii) There must be intention to cause its death.
iv) Action must be taken to cause its death
v) Death must result from such action.

It's not breaking the first precept but I guess precept doesn't cover everything. If abattoir doesn't receive any money from the buyer, they will have to close their business. Why paying them money is different from causing another to kill or contributing to the death of animals?

The first precept covers actions which result in killing that are Karmicly potent.  If you are paying for the meat and not paying to kill, you are not Karmicly responsible.

Can you provide a reference for that? As posted below, is that just a matter of seeing things from different angle since meat comes from killing and we pay them. Aren't they closely connected?
I understand the condition meat and fish can be eaten as condition given by Buddha for his monk disciples. It said little to none about purchasing meat.

"cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami; cetayitva kammam karoti kayena vacaya manasa" - Kamma is volitional action, nothing more, nothing less. The one who purchases the meat has no intention of killing. Nor does he pay to kill.

I guess the point that OP is talking about is whether or not going to the market to buy meat constitutes volition to cause killing or not (since the it's plain that killing has to happen for the product to be available).  So that quote doesn't really resolve matters.

It does not violate as you can see in the answer

@SankhaKulathantille Just visited this forum again. You said there is no karma of killing from purchasing meat but is there bad karma at all from purchasing meat? Sorry for this short question, I thought it's preferable than create another similar new thread. Thanks in advance.

@B1100 can there be bad Karma when purchasing vegetables? Certainly, but not necessarily. It depends on the state of the mind at that time. Same applies for meat.

The argument of demand and supply is not a valid one. On this planet, a great number of human beings (Two thousand per day according to a newspaper report) and countless animals are killed by motor vehicles everyday.  Just by driving vehicles or even sitting in them, we are encouraging the motor industry to make more motor vehicles. If we use the demand and supply argument, then just by using motor vehicles we are encouraging the killing of countless animals and a great number of human beings on the roads everyday — which is worse than eating meat! It is true that we are indirectly involved in the killing of animals but, as explained, there is no kamma-vipaka of killing. This indirect involvement in killing is true whether we eat meat or not, and is something which is unavoidable.
We encourage killing even when we eat vegetarian food. Every day monkeys, squirrels, foxes, flying foxes, and other destructive pests are killed because they eat from fruit trees planted by farmers. Vegetable farmers also kill caterpillars, snails, worms, grasshoppers, ants, and other insects, etc.. Similarly, in Australia for example, kangaroos and rabbits are killed every day because they eat the crops. Many items commonly used by just about everybody cost the lives of living beings. For example, silk is made at the expense of the lives of countless silkworms, and white shellac (used to manufacture many products, including food), of countless lac insects. Cosmetics contain a huge range of animal derived substances. Many food additives, e.g. colourings, flavourings, sweeteners, also use animal derived substances. Commercially produced cheese uses rennet which is extracted from calves’ stomach to make the milk coagulate. Leather and fur are of course made from the hides of animals, often slaughtered for this purpose. Photographic film uses gelatin which is obtained by boiling the skins, tendons, and bones of animals. Even fertilizers for the vegetables and fruit trees often include dried, ground fish bones, and other fish scraps. Also, the use of cow’s milk and honey involve much cruelty to the animals or insects concerned. All these go to show that it is very difficult not to be involved one way or another in the cruelty inflicted on animals. So if one does become a vegetarian, one should reflect on the above and refrain from being over-critical of those who eat meat.

Killing an animal for consumption violates the first precept in Buddhism. Similarly, instructing someone to kill an animal on your behalf infringes upon the third precept. Buddha's teachings emphasize leading by example, advocating for non-harm. Just as you wish to avoid harm or death, others share the same sentiment. Hence, Buddhism calls for refraining from animal killing, both directly and indirectly, either by your own hand or through advising others to do so.

Eating meat is same as eating curd which has countless bacterias. All percepts are for laymen. Buddhas do not define do's and dont's. They simply state principles. The answer to your question is that if you indulge in meat eating or get habituated to it then desire take over. All fulfillment of desires have Karmic repercussions. If you eat meat to satisfy your hunger no problem. But if you eat meat because of its taste be ready for nasty consequences.
When I went to Thailand I was bit surprised to find that Thais prefer meat over vegetarian stuff. Thailand has tropical weather and abundant fruits, vegetables, and cereals. They indulge in meat eating because of taste not because its better. In Ladakh where people pratice Buddhism people have little choice but to eat meat because nothing grows there.
Infact for meditators light diet is a must which is vegetarian.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to those we have injured?
I posted the identikit question to Christianity stackexchange, and was met with dumb silence.
Which, really, I was shocked by. E.g. the parable of the good samaratin:

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat
him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest
was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other
side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and
saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he
travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with
compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and
wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and
took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two
denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of
him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.'
Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him
who fell among the robbers?"
He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

'Mercy' can be defined as

compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within
one's power to punish or harm.

Which is very, very close to exactly what I mean: compassion towards someone who you have punished or harmed.
Because it seems to me to be the bedrock of intelligent ethics, I was very interested in if the Buddha ever discussed this.

Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to
those we have injured?

please don't leave downvotes without a comment, it is lazy and disruptive

What is your question? What is your reason for quoting the parable of the Good Samaritan?

i quoted it because i think it's a useful expression of what i mean, and to illustrate i would like a buddhist example

the parable of the good samaritan
The parable of the Good Samaritan isn't about "special responsibility to those we have injured". In the parable:

The "certain man" was injured by robbers (who stripped and beat him)
The injured man was ignored by a priest and a Levite
The Samaritan showed compassion and acted as if he had a special responsibility (even though the Samaritan had nothing to do with, wasn't responsible for, causing the man's injury)
Jesus's message is to do like the Samaritan did

'Mercy' can be defined as compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.
You seem to be interested in the definition of "mercy".
I slightly disagree with your definition above. If you're able to rescue someone from drowning, for example, then that could an act of mercy, but (assuming you weren't the cause of their being in the water) nothing to do with "punishing" or "harming".
You might like Wikipedia's article on Mercy (I went to it to look for the etymology of the word). An interesting part is at the end,

To be mercy, the behavior generally can not be compelled by outside forces. A famous literary example that alludes to the impact of the ethical components of the mercy on the legal aspects is from The Merchant of Venice when Portia asks Shylock to show mercy. He asks, "On what compulsion, must I?" She responds:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

That almost argues against your definition: because there might be some special obligation towards someone you have injured.
The corresponding traditional Buddhist virtues, by the way, if you want to research them further, might be the Brahmaviharas (including Karuṇā which is 'translated' as compassion), and ahimsa (harmlessness or non-violence, for example mentioned here).

compassion towards someone who you have punished or harmed
There may be something somewhere in Buddhist scripture, that talks about whether and how to behave towards people you have injured.
Although that's your question I'm not immediately inclined to answer it, because the more important message of Buddhism is, "because you have compassion for people, do not cause them injury".
The basic rules of conduct, for example the five precepts, and the ethical conduct portion of the eight-fold way, are to do with not causing injury.
One of the suttas about the five precepts starts with,

There are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?
There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans...

The practice of Dana (i.e. gift-giving or generosity) is made especially by laypeople towards monks and nuns; and not because those monks and nuns were injured by the laypeople.

Because it seems to me to be the bedrock of intelligent ethics
Some people think that the "golden rule" is the bedrock of intelligent ethics, e.g. "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", also known as "love thy neighbour as thyself".
I think you'll find that in Buddhism too, for example in the Dhammapada,

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
hereafter.

Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.

Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to those we have injured?
I'm pretty sure he taught that we have some responsibility to not injure people.
I think that the practice of deliberately (intentionally) injuring someone would be likely to have a negative/undesirable karmic consequence.
I'm not sure it's always possible to undo an injury (which is a reason for avoiding causing injury in the first place).
Answers to other topics on this site, for example What do we do when we've broken a precept?, don't seem to focus on restitution or special responsibility towards the injured party.
The practice of the Buddhist "Metta Bhavana" (or "cultivation of loving-kindness") meditation is meant to develop compassion towards all people, both near and far, both more dear and less dear -- and not especially towards "someone you have punished or injured".

Chris, i think the parable can be interpreted that way :)

Chris, that is a good and thorough answer. I will accept it, at least until I get something specific. cheers mate :)

I added a bit to the answer, about 'mercy'.

Sorry, are you saying that the parable can be interpreted as the Samaritan being one of the robbers? I don't think so. If you read the parable and article, I think it's saying that the Samaritan behaves as a loving neighbour, even though the Samaritan has no previous relationship (for example the Samaritan isn't even Jewish).

The original version of your question was, "Does Christianity teach that we have a special responsibility to the people we have injured? Or is it limited to those that are close to us, the very misfortunate, etc.?" IMO the Good Samaritan is not someone who caused injury ... and, he isn't socially close (for example like a "close family member"), though he is physically close i.e. within reach, assuming he doesn't cross to the other side of the road. Instead this is in the category of the "injured man" being very unfortunate.

specifically, the hatred of one group (the samaritan) and the other (the "jew"). :)

@user3293056 See also e.g. Matthew 5:47 ... it may imply the opposite of having a special, exclusive, and/or conditional relationship. Or, "an eye for an eye" sounds to me like "special responsibility" towards someone you injured (i.e. that you owe them compensation), but that (old testament law) is reversed by Jesus (who said to "turn the other cheek" instead), and there are some more-or-less similar teachings in Buddhism.

Yes householder, interested,
Reconciliation is very important to be able to move on, so one should, when ever there is a change, seek after such.

"Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are fools. Bala-pandita Sutta: Fools & Wise People

As it is not always possible, there are placed less duties, but there have been given such for Bhikkhus, especially toward lay people and such is also needed in cases where the monks have rightly turned over the bowl for lay people. And there are also transactions within the community.
In the first case, having done wrong toward a lay person, there is even a detail way how to do it and that such as reconciliation is very needed within relations.
There is a generous work by Bhante Thanissaro on this matter: Reconciliation, Right & Wrong
One may let it be known if details are wished to get known to understand this matter well for a possibility to walk on, since not done blocks one 100% off.
Being that important, follower would ask the teacher and Tripple Gems on each meeting anew for forgiveness (Vandami) since otherwise the "first precept" is broken and no change to ever success in Dhamma. As known wrongdoing toward them can be a matter that leads to hell and cuts one off totally.

Requesting Forgiveness from the Tripple Gems:
Repeat Namo... three times. Then:
Ratanattaye pamādena, dvārattayena kataṃ,
Sabbaṃ aparādhaṃ khamatu no bhante.
May the Triple Gem forgive us for any wrong we have done out of carelessness in thought, word, or deed.

...from Monk(s), teacher...
Repeat Namo... three times. Then:
[Mahāthere]* pamādena, dvārattayena kataṃ,
Sabbaṃ aparādhaṃ khamatu no bhante.
(Three times.)
Venerable Sir, may you forgive us for any wrong >we have done you out of carelessness in thought, >word, or deed.
[* Mahāthere is used for very senior & >highly respected monks. Change it to There for >somewhat less senior monks, Upajjhāye for one's >preceptor, Ācariye for one's teacher, and >Āyasmante for monks in general.]
Bow down & stay there while the monk says:
Ahaṃ khamāmi, tumhehi pi me khamitabbaṃ.
I forgive you; may you all also forgive me.

Extended and usual forms found in the morning and evening recitations.
So especially parents, teacher, supporter, and Tripple Gems: hurry up if there is anything not solved!
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

Yes. Buddhism teaches if we have performed a harmful action and we become conscientiously aware we harmed, we should ask for forgiveness and do whatever we can do to reconcile the matter.
For example, the scriptures contain the following stock phrase:

But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in
accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a
cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,
seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with
the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.

The scriptures also contain the following teaching:

These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise people.
Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are fools.

It follows the robbers in the Parable of the Good Samaritan have no special responsibility in Buddhism because they were not conscientiously aware and they were not Buddhists. The Buddhist Path is only for Buddhists.
For example, puthujjana ('blind worldlings') often attempt to harm my efforts to teach to the True Dhamma but I have no expectations towards them to have 'mercy' on me because they are puthujjana ('blind worldlings'). Their destination of "hell" is already determined by their actions. Jesus said: "Forgiven them Father, for they know not what they do". Similarly, the Buddha taught all unskillful actions have ignorance or not-knowing as their source.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience &
lack of concern.
Avijja Sutta

Since the ignorant do not know what they are doing is wrong & harmful, it is not possible they have a sense of special responsibility. They will continue to act motivated by what they believe is 'right', even though they are wrong & harm themselves, others & even the Buddha-Dhamma.

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


text:
Are there any strict Soto Zen teachers online that I could listen to?
Recently, I have become interested in Soto Zen. I would like to go to a Soto Zen center, but I live to far away from one. This leaves me with the option for listening to online talks. Are there any free online dharma talks given by reliable teachers known to the Soto community. Dogen explains the features of a reliable teacher but I haven't been able to find one. Can you guys help?

Soto Zen Dharma talks: http://livestream.com/SFZC
Shunryū Suzuki
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4867F3D9F795268A

Rinsen Sensei of the Buddhist Temple of Toledo has transmission in the Harada-Yasutani lineage. His Dharma talks and Teishos are posted online occasionally, all for free. He is a genuine and reliable teacher.
http://www.thedrinkinggourd.org
http://www.buddhisttempleoftoledo.org
Also check out Zen Mountain Monastery and the San Francisco Zen Center you might be able to find some free talks on there.


text:
In which language or languages were most of the sutras compiled?
In general, which language or languages were the sutras compiled and was this the same language tha Shakyamuni spoke?

near duplicate to this https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3305/what-language-did-the-buddha-speak?rq=1

Shakyamuni Buddha spoke in a language known as Magadhi Prakrit. According to this article https://www.quora.com/What-language-did-Gautama-Buddha-speak-according-to-Indian-mythology-and-why-is-it-significant there are no written records in his language. Instead, they were later written down in Pali, Sinhalese, and Sanskrit.

Magadhi is Pali language in the spoken form at the time of the Buddha. Magadhi was a dialect spoken in the Maghadan area in the eastern part of North India and was thought likely to be a composite with features assembled from different geographical areas. Theravada Buddhists consider that Magadhi was probably the language preferred and used by the Buddha. It was this language that came to be developed and formalised as a written language, which we now call “Pali”.
Pali is a written language, but it has no special script. It should be noted that the Magadhi/Pali we have now may not be the full and accurate spoken language of those days and in fact, may not have been actually used in this present form.
Pali, (“Pali” means “text”), has a vocabulary that has special significance for the study of Buddhism, because its words have been well defined for the needs of the Buddha’s teachings, which no other language could successfully define.
Pali is the language of the Theravada Buddhist religion’s record of teachings, the “The Tripitaka” the Vinaya Pitaka (the collection of rules for Monks), the Sutta Pitaka (main body of collected teachings) and the Abidhamma Pitaka (a  later addition to original teachings).

Would you say that Pali too, is the language of Mahayana buddhists since they are based on the same teachings

Mahayana has both Pali and Sanskrit. Other schools of Buddhism which emerged soon after the Buddha’s Parinibbana, used the classical language of India for the propagation of the Buddha’s teachings - Sanskrit. There is even a variety of Sanskrit called “Buddhist Sanskrit. For example, in Sanskrit, the word “Dharma” is “Dhamma” in Pali. “Karma”, in Sanskrit but in Pali it is “Kamma” - signifies the moral law as defined by the Buddha.

So would you say that if one were studying the sutras, Pali would be better to know, but if studying later texts, Sanskrit is better?

I do not want to comment on other schools of Buddhism when I do not even read the Abhidhamma - the third basket of the Tipitaka. So I will not say “NO” to anyone wanting to read and get to know the other schools or texts like the Abhidhamma. That is as long as they can become a “Sothapanna” (a Stream Entrant)  before they pass on – as we have such a short time to live.


text:
What is the, "Counterfeit Law" as referenced in Lotus Sutra
In the Lotus Sutra, (Burton Watson translation) there is often mention of "the counterfeit law" being propigated for so-and-so number of small kalpas. I will give an exerpt below, but what exactly is this referring to? I don't know if this is helpful information, but it almost always is talked of in accordance to a prophesy.

"That buddha's life span will be twenty-four small kalpas, his Correct Law will endure in the world for fourty small kalpas, and his Counterfeit Law for fourty small kalpas."

Here is the definition for  Correct Law (from the Soka Gakkai Nichiren Buddhism Library Glossary):

Correct Law (Ch zhengfa, J shōhō or shōbō) An abbreviation for the period when the Correct Law prevails. According to Buddhist belief, after the death of a buddha, his teachings pass through three periods or phases of development. In the first, known as the period of the Correct Law, Buddhism is a living religion and those who practice it attain enlightenment through its teachings. The period of the Correct Law following the death of Shakyamuni Buddha is usually said to have been a thousand years in length, though some sources describe it as five hundred years long.

And here is the definition for Counterfeit Law:

Counterfeit Law (Ch xiangfa, J zōhō or zōbō) Second period following the death of a buddha. During this period, Buddhism becomes increasingly formalized, people’s connection with it weakens, and progressively fewer of them are able to gain enlightenment through its teachings. Some sources describe the period of the Counterfeit Law following Shakyamuni’s death as a thousand years in length, others as five hundred years.

Thank you for your answer. Do you know what the the third period of development is called?

Thank you for answering. It's better if quotes are attributed/referenced (so I edited to add the attribution/reference).

I'm not sure this answer is correct...The Sutra should be re-read...


text:
Can the dharmakaya buddha be manifest as human?
It occurred to me that some human life has immeasurable value. Not just is very very valuable, but cannot, in principle, be contrasted with the value of another sentient life.
I think that the term for this immeasurability is the dharmakaya.
Do any traditions claim that the dharmakaya is never manifest in a human being?

I am writing from the point of view of Tibetan Buddhism. Your question actually has two aspects. The only thing that can set humans apart from other sentient beings is realization of "precious human life". This is the desire,ability,and opportunity to take refuge in the Three Jewels of Buddha,Dharma,and Sangha.
The second aspect is the understanding of the three kayas (bodies) of the enlightenment of a buddha.
Dharmakaya represents mind,and as such has no bodily form. It is always present,yet does not change or transform. It is not the conceptual daily mind that we are all familiar with, but rather primordial, pure and clear mind, hence unchanging. It is the basis for determining sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya.
Sambhogakaya represents speech. It is the speech that manifests wisdom in a verbal and nonverbal aspect. In other words, thinking and speaking with wisdom from the Buddhist point of view. It is the ability to communicate wisely on all levels.
Nirmanakaya represents the body. This is the physical aspect of one who is enlightened. It is the literal body that communicates and relates, changing constantly as it purifies karmic influence and residue. This continues until purification to the point of being one with extraordinary ability to work for the benefit of others.
As a sentient being with precious human life,the three kayas work together as one to produce an enlightened buddha.
These topics and many others are covered in Khenchen Konchog Gyaltshen Rinpoche's very easy to understand book,"A Complete Guide To The Buddhist Path".

Dharmakaya is not this virtue. Dharmakaya is the essence of Buddhahood and formless in nature.
Sambhogakaya is this collective virtue that you speak of and a highly cultivated person can "show it off" so to speak in a physical manner.
That being understood, your question:
Do any traditions claim that the dharmakaya is never manifest in a human being?
With the proper above understanding in place, your question is actually about the sambhogakaya which is like a collective strength of one's paramitas.
No one has absolutely 0%, maybe some very very low. If one is lucky enough to be a human being, then they definitely do not have 0% and have done some great good (maybe lifetimes ago) to deserve being human.


text:
Are there buddhists who criticize Eckhart Tolle as it is not really a buddhist teach? If so, what is their critique?
Eckhart Tolle is a spiritual teacher who is influenced by Christianity and Buddhism etc. Now he says that there are Buddhists who claim that his teachings are not really Buddhist. But in what way are his teachings not really Buddhist?

I think you're saying that Eckhart Tolle himself said that, "there are Buddhists who claim that his teachings are not really Buddhist"? Where did he say that, where did you find that quote?

I'm not sure but it could be in this video do not know exactly where https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zcurl7QUCw

The Buddha taught us to always verify anyone's teaching, no matter how well-respected s/he is. See the guideline in a similar thread at: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/12649/shouldnt-we-take-lord-buddhas-word-above-the-all-others/12651

OP please produce areas where ET misappropriated the Dhamma, or example of Buddhists criticising him. I've down voted this.

I don't know but that is what he told himself. But I'am interested to in knowing that and it is even the main question of this question

Eckhart Tolle had a spontaneous enlightenment while having a dark-night experience. He visited Buddhist monasteries and talked to the monks to understand what has happened to him. He wasn't influenced by the Christianity that is based on worshipping to God, but he thinks that Jesus was a Buddha like figure who gave similar teachings like him. I don't know so much about Christianity and Jesus but this is how Eckhart sees Christianity and Jesus.

If you call something Buddhism it will be attributed to the Buddha and should be inline with the doctrinal system the Buddha taught. If something is not what the Buddha said then it is wrong to miss attributed something to the Buddha as this is what the Buddha taught. A summary of the majority of Buddha's teaching is encompassed in the Wings of Awakening, 3 Marks of Existence, 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination. So if what Eckhart Tolle writes does not have these aspects and if what is found in line with the doctrinal system then you cannot call it Buddhism.
Also some of the core teachings of Christianity and Buddhism are not compatible with each other, so any philosophy influenced by both is neither Christianity nor Buddhism.
See: -ism

I would question the idea that some of the core teachings of Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible. It's a murky area though, since it's possible to disagree on what is 'core' and what isn't . Do you have a couple of examples?

There are also Christians who claim he doesn't teach Christianity very well either. Instead, he draws off sources the general public would typically understand. Eckhart Tolle and his teachings are more Taoist than Buddhist. His favorite book to read is the "Tao Te Ching" by Lao tzu. He explains this in his talk called, "Eckhart Tolle - Tao Te Ching and a previous global evolutional era". Although he has very similar teachings to Buddha, he neglects the primary teachings such as the Four Noble Truths, the Three Gems, the Eight Fold Path, and so on...

But if he neglects those teachings does it mean also that there isn't any other way in which he explains or teach those 'rules'? Aren't they hidden in his teaching? I know that his interpretations of christianity is bit more gnostic so there is a lack concerning that but do you know essential lacks concerning buddism or misinterpretations of him which can't stroke with buddism

Buddhism teaches something known as, "Universal Truths". This means they are truths which can be found outside of Buddhism. As Suminda explains in his comment in order for something to be Buddhist, it must follow the teachings of Buddha. Taoism and Soto Zen are very similar but different because they come from two different teachers. One comes from Lao Tzu and the other was Buddha. Eckhart Tolle teaches a lot on what Buddhism believes, but it doesn't mean it's Buddhist.

Ok, so a buddhist can totally agree with his teachings and besides that nothing more is needed besides the teaching of Tolle. So the teachings (Tolle and buddhism) are actionally the same?

From a practical approach, yes. In a more theological approach, no.

'theological'? you mean 'theoretically'?

Theoretically could be applied but theological meaning, "a system of religious beliefs or ideas". For example, reincarnation, the six realms of existence, Buddha Land, etc...

I've read Eckhart Tolle's book "The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment" and if I compare it with Buddhism, I would say Tolle is teaching some form of samatha meditation, that might help someone reach the first or second jhana. Being established in the jhana is being present in the "now" in my opinion.
The experience that Tolle had, which he considers to be enlightenment, is probably just the piti, sukha and samadhi experienced in jhana. I think those who are familiar with Buddhism could read Eckhart Tolle's Enlightenment Story and come to their own conclusions.
Of course as we know, there's a lot more to Buddhism than attaining jhanas. In fact, being addicted to jhanas could be an obstacle to Nirvana.
In his book, he talks about focusing on breath or sensations in the body. These are of course, samatha objects of meditation to induce concentration.

I disagree with those who says that Eckhart's teachings are not Buddhist or Eckhart is not enlightened. It can be true that Eckhart didn't become a Sakadagami immediately as he describes in his books(but it is possible that he became a sakadagami immediately too). But whether he immediately become a Sakadagami or not doesn't matter, it is not a difficult thing to recognise his purity right now. Also Eckhart teaches mindfulness in essence in his teachings, but also teaches things like inner body awareness, or breath awareness to make the beginner meditator's mind calm a little bit. But the core of his teachings is mindfulness. He leads people to give attention to whatever they are doing. Looking, listening, walking, washing the hands, driving, observing the emotions or whatever..This is clearly mindfulness So just looking from this side, Eckhart's teachings are very aligned with the Buddha's teaching.
Ofcourse Eckhart's many descriptions about the nature of the reality fits more with Hinduism. He speak about one consciousness, god etc. So yes from just looking from this side Eckhart's teaching is not aligned with Buddhism.
But we must not forget that Buddhism's main goal is to make people experience the nature of reality themselves. That's why Buddha who was a very intelligent being wanted people to avoid transforming Buddhism to a kind of a worshipping or studying based conceptual belief system.
To sum up, from the experience level Eckhart's teachings are very aligned with Buddha's teachings and from the conceptual level Eckhart's teachings are partially aligned with Buddhism.

As I see it, Buddhism is working through the process of generating a fourth wheel of the dharma — a wheel integrated with the modern, scientific, Christianity-rooted secularism that predominates in the West — and people like Tolle are part of that process. Remember, Buddhism has only been active in the West for a bit more than a century, which is practically nothing in the timeline of a faith.
Of course, traditionalists will always balk at the idea of a new wheel, and will tend to see people like Tolle as interesting curiosities rather than proper teachers. And of course, there's no way to tell if Tolle's influence will withstand the test of time. This is a period of flux, so the status of everything is subject to change without notice. Such is life.


text:
What would Buddha advise to farewell when one of your parents died?
Perhaps some Buddhists will say death doesn't really exist, but in any case, when your parents die, there is something changed.
What would Buddha teach to say goodbye to your parents. Probably all kinds of feelings may be there and that is good, but worry a lot wouldn't be very advisable. But is it 'advisable' to feel joy or sadness.
For short, how to say goodbye when someone close to you died?

You can do transfer of merit.
More on this see:

How can merit be transferred?
Transfering merits
Sharing merit in Theravada Buddhism
Actions taken to transfer merit
Does Theravada believe in feeding food to hungry ghosts?

Also you can do a:

offering of cloths to the monks in memory of the dead (monks cloths were initially made of the cloth used to wrap the dead bodies)
organise a dhamma talk for the benefit of the dead (generally the night before the almsgiving mentioned below)
organise an almsgiving for the benefit of the dead (generally at 7 days, 3 months, then annually)

Some of these are covered in: Buddhist Ceremonies and Rituals of Sri Lanka by A.G.S. Kariyawasam


text:
self esteem and the need to feel proud of ourselves
When I see my direction of motivation towards working or relationships or for that matter even meditation is the want to feel proud of myself. Why do we need to feel proud of ourselves? Can we overcome that need?
Also want to know if this is related to emotional insecurity

because of a thing every un-enlightened being possess: self-clinging, or more commonly, the ego. Its thirst for fame, power, recognition, pride, satisfaction, etc. knows no bound. Cultivating the Buddha-Dhamma will eventually gives rise to the insight about all conditioned phenomena: impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self.

The motivation behind the need to feel proud of yourself has it's roots in a lack of self-worth and confidence.

Lack of self-confidence can be made up of several different aspects like: guilt, anger turned inward, unrealistic expectations of perfection, false sense of humility, fear of change or making mistakes, depression etc. Depression can actually also be a result of a lack of self-confidence. '

The damage can actually be found in your ego. The ego is an identity fabricated in the mind by past events. For example your birth name, skin color, nationality, sex, or anything that deals with past experiences which reaffirms the identity of who you are. In Buddhism, there are terms such as "antidotes" which are used to cure delusions associated with general or specific sufferings. For example, anger can be cured with patience and love. Anxiety can be cured with acceptance and wisdom. Self-worth can be cured by loving-kindness and wisdom.
Loving-kindness, also known as Metta, is a practice to accept and love others and ourselves unconditionally. Typically Metta is practiced through a meditation which usually uses a mantra such as,

May you be happy. May you be well. May you be safe. May you be peaceful and at ease.

Other methods may include visualizations such as a radiating red or white auras from the heart symbolizing love. Meditation is important but more importantly is service. It takes the attention off yourself and puts it onto others. This is the quickest way for developing Metta in yourself while putting it into practice.
Next, you need to develop wisdom. Studying sutras, listening to Dharma talks, and reading books on the subject is a fantastic way to gain knowledge. Knowledge will help you systematically but it won't necessarily develop wisdom. By doing meditations such as "Zazen", you will gradually see through the ego the same way you would see through a desert mirage. Eventually by seeing through the ego it will wither away completely leaving you at peace.

Being proud is a natural consequence of certain thought patterns rooted in craving, i.e., when there is craving there is self conceiving in some cases and some cases when there is self conceiving can lead to being proud. [Tanhā Jālinī Sutta, (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta]
To overcome feeling proud you should be aware when you evaluate yourself higher and be equanimous in face of pleasant sensation that follow. To develop wisdom you have to be aware of the arising and passing nature or impermanent nature of what is experienced. To fully eradicate the roots so this does not arise again, you should know the whole sphere of sensation or phenomenas which you can sense and your perceiving the experience and positive, negative or neutral and the pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations that follow. [Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2]
The practical aspects is better learned by doing a formal course. You can search for a suitable course location at: https://www.dhamma.org/en/index, http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

I think it is pretty good explained here

If one regards himself superior or equal or inferior by reason of the body that is impermanent, painful and subject to change, what else is it than not seeing reality? Or if one regards himself superior or equal or inferior by reason of feelings, perceptions, volitions or consciousness, what else is it than not seeing reality? If one does not regard himself superior or equal or inferior by reason of the body, the feelings, perceptions, volitions or consciousness what else is it than seeing reality? - SN 22.49


text:
If you are/become very sensitive for sounds what could be the reason/cause?
If you get disturbed at night by tiny sounds or find it difficult to hear loud sounds at day is there a particulary cause known for that in buddhism. Is it bad and what to do about it?

Sensitivity could just mean your senses are being noticed. Something that you once ignored is now being noticed because your living in the present moment. You're aware of things which you didn't notice before. It may seem louder than usual because your mind is no longer being occupied by something else. Another explanation could be sensory adaptation to a new environment. It's not uncommon for practitioners who return from retreats to be more sensitive to their environment. Their ears have adapted to the silent lifestyle but eventually adapt to usual city noise over time.

If you have too much sensitivity to sound it means Air element is disturbed. It also results in insomnia. Your body is a five element phenomenon. Buddha never paid any attention to them because they are supposed to be taken care of by right living and meditation techniques.
But modern man is a highly disturbed creature with a toxic body. I suggest if meditation techniques are not working try detox techniques which some monks practice like eating light or limiting to two times in a day. It is important you take care of nutrition and calories otherwise it will be counter productive. If they do not work visit a herbal medicine practitioner. Try Ayurveda or Traditional Chinese Medicine. They are very effective in fixing imbalances especially for meditators.

To hear you need:

have a functional ear faculty
a sound to hear
direct your consciousness to the ear faculty

Assuming you ear is in good condition as you hear well in night. Since you are sensitive at night, and not at day, when things are quiet, is that you are more composed or focused with you attention at the ear to hearing than in day time. During the perhaps with other activities you are also distracted hence attention is not fulling on the sounds you hear.


text:
What is the mean of 'samma ditti' in Ariya-Ashtanga Marga?
Everybody, who is learning Buddhism know that 'Samma Dhitti' is the 1st of 'Ariya-Ashtanga Marga'. It's surface meaning is 'Right vision'. But what is the exact meaning of it?
It is a one procedure of 'Ariya-Ashtanga Marga' to achieve 'Nirvana'. I want to know the deep meaning of it. How to achieve right vision or Samma Dhitti? Is it a procedure of our thoughts?
If we go to the 'Samma aajeewa','Samma kammantha','Samma wacha''Samma wayama', we can describe them as procedures or habits. But I get a feeling that 'Samma Dhitti' is more than that.

Have you listened to this dhamma lecture by Bhikkhu Bodhi? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIZBSgrHVHo

no. but I am listing it now. thanks for link.

If a virtuous person were to constantly reflect and expand upon even one strand mentioned in the Samma Ditti sutta referred by Suminda above, it will be for his long term benefit.
For example one can take the section on the four types of Food and constantly reflect on that reality and confirm that view.
Mr. Piya Tan has written an in depth commentary of the Samma Ditti sutta here.
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/11.14-Sammaditthi-S-m9-piya.pdf

A full description and meaning of that Samma Ditthi in the Ariya-Ashtanga Marga is given in the Samma,ditthi Sutta. Giving a full description of this here will be too long for this format.
The morality aspect of the path is mainly based on abstaining from certain unwholesome conduct.
Right Effort is more in lines of developing wholesome mental habits which subdue the 5 hindrances, development of the Seven Factors of Enlightenment.

Another aspect of Sammadhitthi is described in Maha-salayatanika Sutta MN 149.

.."However, knowing & seeing the eye as it actually is present, knowing & seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present, knowing & seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is not infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain.
"For him — uninfatuated, unattached, unconfused, remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future diminution. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — is abandoned by him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances are abandoned. His bodily torments & mental torments are abandoned. His bodily distresses & mental distresses are abandoned. He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of awareness.
"Any view belonging to one who has come to be like this is his right view. Any resolve, his right resolve. Any effort, his right effort. Any mindfulness, his right mindfulness. Any concentration, his right concentration: just as earlier his actions, speech, & livelihood were already well-purified. Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of their development. The four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for Awakening go to the culmination of their development.1 [And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight....

Samma Ditthi is in short Right understanding.  Right understanding is explained as the knowledge of the four noble truths. In other words, it is the understanding of oneself as one really is, because, as the Rohitassa Sutta states, these truths are concerned with the "one-fathom long body of man." The key-note of Buddhism is this right understanding.
Consider the following statement: Pemato jayati soko, pemato jayati bhayam. [From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear]. Conventional minds will recoil to the idea - as it indeed did when the Buddha said it. The truth and meaning of Dhamma becomes a private experience by the wise only when there is insight or vipassana. But vipassana depends on samadhi or concentration. And samadhi depends on Samma-ditthi. Thus, everything in Dhamma is connected. Why is that? The Buddha is speaking, albeit in diverse ways, only of one thing and one thing alone – dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.
One pre-requisite of one coming to ‘Right View’ (Samma Ditti) is learning to welcome advice of the Supreme Buddha with delight. We must not treat even a single verse of Dhamma as being plain and simple. We must learn to treat the Noble Dhamma as supreme. We must consider this Dhamma to be the most profound. One would ask as to why should we learn to perceive it in that way? It is because this Noble Dhamma is Svākkhāto (it is well proclaimed). Nothing needs to be corrected in this Dhamma and nothing can be discarded on the basis that it is too plain and simple (if one understands this quality, then this person comes to Samma Ditti— right view). This is why we must hold dear the advice we receive and use that noble advice to discipline ourselves than vice-a-versa.
In its fullest measure right view involves a correct understanding of the entire Dhamma or teaching of the Buddha, and thus its scope is equal to the range of the Dhamma itself. But for practical purposes two kinds of right view stand out as primary. One is mundane right view, right view which operates within the confines of the world. The other is supramundane right view, the superior right view which leads to liberation from the world.
Mundane right view involves a correct grasp of the law of kamma, the moral efficacy of action. Its literal name is "right view of the ownership of action", and it finds its standard formulation in the statement: "Beings are the owners of their actions, the heirs of their actions; they spring from their actions, are bound to their actions, and are supported by their actions. Whatever deeds they do, good or bad, of those they shall be heirs."
This superior right view leading to liberation is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths. It is this right view that figures as the first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path in the proper sense: as the noble right view. Thus the Buddha defines the path factor of right view expressly in terms of the four truths: "What now is right view? It is understanding of suffering (dukkha), understanding of the origin of suffering, understanding of the cessation of suffering, understanding of the way leading to the cessation to suffering."


text:
Monks chosen for Tibetan Telepathy
In Tibetan Buddhism there is a sect of monks who specialize in "Telepathy". Their job essentially is to protect the Tibetan people from natural disasters. Does anyone know the process on how these Tibetan monks are chosen? And why are not all worthy Tibetan monks allowed in this position?

Not all worthy (enlightened) monks have psychic powers. In fact, Satan or Mara also has psychic powers. The Buddha's enemy Devadatta, who tried to murder Buddha, also had psychic powers. Psychic powers, such as telepathy, can only be developed by individuals that have a latent disposition for them. The Buddha had many fully enlightened disciples but they all did not have psychic powers. The most lucid (Sariputta) did not have psychic powers. The disciple famed for his psychic powers (Maha Moggallana)  was said to be Mara in a past life (MN 50). In original Buddhism, psychic powers were not considered a sign of sanctity.

The Mahayana traditions emphasize training in mind reading for Bodhisattvas in order to help people.

I think you're operating from a misunderstanding.  If you got this from Lobsang Rampa's books (written by an English plumber and fraud) please disregard it.

Please provide some rationale or explanation for your answer. Thanks

I think he's saying that the question might be based on information read in Rampa's books.  The information contained in them is wildly fabricated and fraudulent.

As one of the other answers mentioned I never heard of such a thing of monks saving people from disaster. Actually it would be a waste of time from buddhist point of view that instead of teaching and practicing dhamma, monks try to save people from an ever changing world. Buddha himself many a times when faced with such disasters reminded people to remember Anicca and meditate on it.
But talking about supernatural power in general, actually there had been mention of divine eye, divine ear, flying, walking over water, etc. in some discourse and it's said that every disciple experience this in the process. like in "DN 12 PTS: D i 224-Lohicca Sutta: To Lohicca"
more suttas in here.

Noone "has" telepathy.
However many people "use" telepathy.
For one, I do.
It has NOTHING to do with buddhism.
Do some buddhists use telepathy?
Yes. Absolutely.

Welcome to the site. Please reread the question again and, if you can, augment your answer so that it addresses what the questioner is asking. Kind regards.


text:
How did Buddha Explain the Creation Of the World?
I have heard that Buddha explained how the world is recreated after a destruction, in Aggan̄n̄a Sutta.

One tale told by the Buddha in the Aggan̄n̄a Sutta describes the process of recreation on this grand scale. An old world-system has just been destroyed, and its inhabitants are reborn in a new system. To begin with they are spirits, floating happily above the earth, luminescent and without form, name or sex.
  The world in these early stages is without light or land, only water. Eventually earth appears and the spirits come to taste and enjoy it. Their greed causes their ethereal bodies to become solid and coarse and differentiate into male and female, good-looking and ugly. As they lose their luminescence the sun and moon come into being.Gradually the beings fall into further wicked habits, causing themselves - and the earth itself - to become less pleasant.
  Source- BBC

However, the modern science describes the creation of the world in a different way. According to scientists, the first life on earth started in water. Later these water animals came to land and evolved to the types of animals that we see today. It is said that the humans evolved from monkeys. It's evident that Dinosaurs lived on earth before humans.
Which explanation is true? Buddha's or Scientists'? Did Buddha lie When explaining the creation of the world because the people at that time didn't understand these scientific facts?
Very sorry for my bad English.

It is not in the nature of any Buddha to lie or deceive people. If he thought that people were not capable of understanding his explanations I think he would have refrained from saying anything at all. All that scientists have come up with are still theories and yet to be proven. Evolution is yet to be proved. But I get your point when it comes to dinosaurs

@Heisenberg In the Lotus Sutra, I think that there is a part in which he talks of expedient means and how he had been decieving people with many asoects of what he said so as to get them to better and more quickly understand what I believe is called the "Great Law". Below in the next comment is a quite from the Lotus Sutra as translated by Burton Watson:

@Heisenberg This quote is Shakyamuni talking to -I think- Shariputra:  "[When I had first attained enlightenment], the wisdom I have attained is subtle, wonderful, the formeost. But living beings, dull in capacity, are addicted to pleasure and blinded by foolidhness. With persons such as this, what can I say, how can I save them?... I thought to myself, if I mearly praised the great buddha vahicle, the living beings, sunk in their suffering, would be incapible of believing in this law. … It would be better if I did not oreach the Law, but quickly entered into nirvana." Once there Shakyamuni is

@Heisenberg talking to the buddhas of the ten directions and there, they say, "For the sake of living beings we make distinctiond and preach the three vehicles. People of small wisdom delight in small doctrine, unavle to believe that they themselvs could become buddhas. Therefore, we employ expedient means, making distinctions and preaching various goals (76-78).

@Heisenberg Sorry for my bad spelling throughout my comments -My keyboard isn't working correctly and now that I see the mistakes, the system isn't letting me edit my comments.-

If it is difficult to comprehend the explanation given in Aggañña Sutta; how about focusing your energy to understand Loka Sutta, SN 12.44? If you can realize this explanation, there will not be any doubt about Aggañña Sutta.
Loka Sutta, SN 12.44

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.
"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world."

Which explanation is true? Buddha's or Scientists'? Did Buddha lie When explaining the creation of the world...

No enlightened being lies for any purpose. Scientific knowledge is based on hypothesis. The Dhamma is what the Buddha understood through direct knowledge.

It is said that the humans evolved from monkeys. It's evident that
  Dinosaurs lived on earth before humans.

In Buddhism, humans are not identified as animals. They devolved from self-luminous gods(brahmas). Not monkeys! Agganna sutta is about how human beings came to dwell on Earth. It doesn't mention about the origin of the animals.
In any case, dinosaur bones being older than human bones doesn't prove that humans came later.

" they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long
  time." -Agganna Sutta

A being with such a form cannot be expected to leave any bones behind when they die. It's only much much later their bodies started to harden.
According to Science, dinosaurs lived between 230 and 65 million years ago. Land plants had evolved on Earth by about 700 million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago. According to Agganna sutta, the earth didn't even have trees when the first humans came.
We were here even before the first mushrooms(fungi) appeared on earth:

Then, mushroom-like plants began to grow so fast that they replaced
  the mud-like ocean. The creatures began to devour them as well, and
  they also found it delicious, like sweet honey and milk. Their body
  hardened more and details began to turn finer. -Agganna Sutta

Geological timeline
<>4.6 billion years ago  ~ The origin of the Earth
<>65 million years ago  ~ Dinosaurs and ammonites become extinct
<>14 million years ago  ~ The first great apes appear
<>2.5 million years ago ~ Genus Homo evolves
<>200 thousand years ago ~ Our species, Homo Sapiens Evolves According to the stats above, humans appeared on earth after the extinction of Dinosaurs What do u think?

I think you missed my points on humans not evolving from apes and early humans not having solid bodies with bones.

Humans may have co-existed with dinosaurs but may not have had the same physical form as we do today. The definition in science for "human" is different to the Buddhist definition I suppose. The difference is what's causing this confusion. Correct me if I am wrong.

@Heisenberg yes, possibly!

Is it also possible that the real age of the earth is much older than what scientists believe?

That's possible too

How did Buddha Explain the Creation Of the World?

As you noted much of it found in Aggañña Sutta and related Suttas.
Also see:

Buddhist cosmology
Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school
Buddhism and evolution
Can you point me some Sutras on Buddhist Cosmology?

Which explanation is true? Buddha's or Scientists'?

There will be argument both for and against which is not the best format for this site.
The Buddha's teaching is eternal / universal while the scientists have theories which time to time get proven and disproven with new theories replacing the old. So it is best to take the Buddha's explanation. Having said this the Buddha sometimes describe thing metaphorically.

Please watch this ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46CZQAHouoY
According to "Aganna suthra" Loard buddha had explained all those things more than modern scientists has been invented.

It will be good to have a summary of the content of the video than provide the link. The links can be a reference, but answers should be self contained.

E.g. more on SE policies on his see: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8231/are-answers-that-just-contain-links-elsewhere-really-good-answers

There are many aprophycal explanations attributable to Buddha but in the core scriptures Buddha regarded such questions & discussion as unprofitable. To quote:
"If, while he is dwelling by means of this dwelling, his mind inclines to speaking, he resolves that 'I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding — i.e., talk about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.' In this way he is alert there. Maha-suññata Sutta
Buddha was concerned about how the mind creates is own 'mental world' (loka) that results in suffering, as explained at the link below & elsewhere. Buddha used the word 'world' as a synonym for 'suffering (eg. in Rohitassa Sutta)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html


text:
Is there a standard way to cite Buddhist scriptures?
Is there anything for Buddhist texts equivalent to the typical way of citing Biblical verses? (e.g. John 1:1)
[Related question on Tripitaka Section Numbering.]

As I keep looking myself, this seems to be less well-specified than one might hope. But a couple of useful things so far lead me to one option being something like:

DN 16 (PTS DN ii 72)

Trouble is, although that's probably quite a precise form, it's for the Pali. See below for the references that help explain it.

Access to Insight, as always, has something useful to say. Unfortunately, the especially relevant-looking link in note #1 at the bottom of that page is dead. However, I googled for the title and I think I found it, or something like it as follows:
The Contents and Structure of the Pali Canon and its Commentaries on this page at BuddhaSasana. (I also searched for it on https://ukabs.org.uk, which is the organization that AtoI's reference suggests originally hosted the document, but I couldn't find it).

I have been having the same problem: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3770/tripitaka-section-numbering. Perhaps if you can find a PDF copy of the latter books this might help solving this.

Thanks Suminda. I've added a link to your question since it's almost certainly going to be useful to anyone interested in mine.


text:
Is Being a Bartender Considered Right Livelihood
Selling animal for its meat is considered a wrong livelihood. Made intoxicants and sell them is also a wrong livelihood.  If people are working on a non-vegetarian food counter, I believe that is not a wrong livelihood. With the same understanding, if someone is working on the wine counter, the duties are serving customers who ask for wine, beer, filling shelves, that is also considered not a wrong livelihood.
But is being a bartender considered a wrong livelihood or not?

Vaṇijjā sutta discusses Right Livelihood in for levity which include: business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
If you sell meat or drinks for a living this is not right livelihood. I think is suffices if you are part of the establishment and need not be the proprietor / owner / shareholder. So if you work in a meat shop or bar or liquor store then this is not right livelihood.
If you are working is a big supermarket which sells among anything meat and drinks and you work in a generic counter not dedicated for the sale of meats or drinks then this might be OK. I.e., if you are part of a large store out of which a small part of business is meats, drinks and poisons unless you are involved is specifically to procure and sell these items it might be OK. As management or owner or shareholder of such business might be OK if this is a minor line of business and you are not involved in the planning and management of such activities.
Kandaraka Sutta, Apannaka Sutta mentions that those who torment themselves, those who torment others, those who torment both, and those who torment neither themselves nor others, out of which the last is the most conducive. Similarly one's job or business should be ideally organised around the same principles.
Also Ama,gandha Sutta discusses that it is not meat you should abstain from but from evil action.
So in conclusion bartending, being in the wine counter, being part of a butcher or meat shop, or being in the meat counter, is not right livelihood, but eating meat is not an issue.

I thought a bartender is slightly different to a filling shelves worker since a bartender mix alcohol drinks which is similar to producing alcohol drinks?
"Obviously a Buddhist cannot be a bartender or a cocktail waitress,...." Right livelihood

Yes. This is right.

Sorry, I don't really get what you meant. Previously you said "...in conclusion bartending, being in the wine counter, being part of a butcher or meat shop, or being in the meat counter, is not right livelihood...." But later you said that is wrong?

Is not right livelihood = wrong livelihood

But working in the wine counter is similar to working in a non-vegetarian restaurant: cooking food, serve the customer, etc.. The same person maybe dealing with cash register or working on the checkout of a supermarket that sells meat. It's the owner who earns profit from selling and buying meat and alcohol. At least that is the intention of the owner, right?

I do not think there is anything which Buddha called right livelihood. These are interpretation of people. If you are a Bar tender clearly you do not have much choice in your life. There is nothing wrong if you are not acting out of desire. Desire is the key thing which differentiates right from wrong. If that job gives you hell lot of money and power, which helps in fulfilling your desire for a sports car, big mansion etc etc then clearly something is not right. A job ideally should be an expression of your talent/self. If you unfortunately not in a position then there is nothing wrong in it. 95% of humans are working for sake of money to survive. It is just a role you are performing to make a living. You are like an actor who is performing a role. There is no bad kamma associated with a role. An actor performing a role of Hitler will not become as bad as Hitler. Hungry and wretched people can not afford religion.

The sutta mentioned above is about dealing with arms, intoxicants etc voluntarily. If you are a bar tender by choice things are different. Please do not leave your job if it is not a choice and become poor. That is the reason most buddhist countries are poor and full of hypocrites. Thailand has become a sex and drugs hub because of poverty. Poverty is a direct result of religion which is not followed in essence.


text:
Beginner: Should I switch to a less advanced samatha practice?
I've been practicing solo now for about a month. The issue is that I don't have a true teacher per se, but a collection of resources which offer diverging guidance. Considering what I've done so far, my background, and my goals, I was hoping for some advice on which path to follow.
I began doing 10-minute sessions using the Headspace app (www.headspace.com). After graduating their 10-day program, I stumbled on a podcast put together by B. Alan Wallace (http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall-2014/). It is a retreat detailing a number of, from what I gather, more advanced practices, covering Wallace's translation of Padmasambava's work. I have worked through the lectures covering settling the body, speech, and mind in their natural state and mindfulness of breathing. I have been doing these practices for about 20 days to what I feel are good effects.
To supplement my practice, I then came across two other resources by Wallace: an academic article he wrote called The Buddhist Tradition of Samatha, which covers a method similar to that in the podcast, but diverging in some ways; I also found his translation of Dudjom Lingpa's work, Stilling the Mind . This offers a path catered more toward Western beginners.
Lastly, I came across another text from Wallace which is geared directly at beginners, called The Attention Revolution.
A little bit of detail on these different methods is in order. The podcast informs my practice for the most part. The main focus, after relaxing and breathing naturally, is to focus the mind on itself, while peripherally noting the duration of in and out breaths.
The beginner's practice in Stilling the Mind begins with "merging the mind with space" (focusing on the space between oneself and external objects), then focusing on a concrete, external object (like a pebble), and culminates with "awareness" (being introspectively mindful of any thoughts that arise). Wallace notes that over time, this practice can lead to the perception of thoughts which are normally too fleeting or subtle otherwise.
The beginner's practice in the Attention Revolution skips anything like "merging the mind with space" and using a pebble, and goes straight for the Burmese method of focusing on the tactice sensations of the abdomen while breathing.
So I'm not sure if I should back track to one of the beginner's practices at this point or not. And if I should back track, which one would be a better option? The podcast practice feels comfortable now, though I am often lost in excitation or laxity. My goal (as of now) is not to become a monk, but to deepen my focus through samatha practice and try to be a more compassionate person. Wallace's argument that strong attention is the foundation of other practices convinces me. So as a lay person, I imagine that having access to subtle thoughts as per the path in Stilling the Mind might be a useful side effect of samatha practice. Then again, the preliminary practices of merging the mind with space and staring at a stone seem a far cry from the podcast practice I've been doing. The Burmese method seems good too.
This is a very long post and I'm not sure if I've included the relevant details for getting the sort of response I want. Please let me know what other information you need. The basic question is this: Should I switch gears to another, less advanced samatha practice now, or stay on my current path? Alternatively, I could test out the other methods for a bit. But which one?

This sounds really caught up in all kinds of cravings for spiritual attainments. If this 'craving' is dropped, the path the Buddha taught, which is the abandonment of craving (rather than mental gymnastics & magical formulas) might be learned. Samatha & vipassana are natural fruits of the properly established or collected mind - aka samadhi. The Buddha taught:

What is the faculty of concentration (samadhi)? There is the case
  where a noble disciple, making 'letting go' his meditation object,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
   SN 48.10

As for the practises mentioned in the original post, they are not 'advanced'. The more complicated & willful they sound, the less advanced they are. The most 'advanced' practises are the most simple. That is why the statement: "Do nothing" often frightens people. Simply 'let go'.

I know exactly how you feel.  I am 6 years+ and still feel the same confusion. So many contradicting opinions out there about what is correct and what is incorrect then others say there is no such thing as incorrect meditation.
We are told constantly to not just listen blindly to the Buddha or the teacher but try it for ourselves but then when we feel we aren't progressing and feel confused   and ask questions we're told that its because we're craving or expecting too much etc!!  Well no actually we are just trying to figure out where we are going wrong or right but not getting any clear answers.

Have you had a teacher? A good teacher can guide you. Doing a retreat with him/her can really deepen ones practice. Are you following a particular tradition?

I have been to a  couple of retreats which were helpful but coming back to daily life it is impossible to maintain that level of mindfulness.   As far as finding a teacher goes I have attended some Sanghas but have failed to realise how I actually find a regular teacher who I can correspond with individually when I need to.  People at Sanghas seem to be very internally focused and not that open or welcoming to new comers in my opinion.

There's only one bace method. Different people show it in their own respective. That's why there are many contradicting things. Find the bace method. Go to Pali Damma books. Or their 100% direct translations. Not books wrote by different different people.

... The issue is that I don't have a true teacher per se, but a collection of resources which offer diverging guidance. ...

Samatha practice it is advisable to have a teacher as quite a few things can go wrong without proper guidance. In case of Vipassana the chances are that few things will go wrong as long as you practice right. In this case you should be careful if you understood and practicing the technique right. Also you should have enough theoretical knowledge to navigate any issues which might popup.

... I began doing 10-minute sessions using the ... app ...

I am not sure if apps can help in meditation other than for ties and occasional chies to keep you mindful. I would be very weary about commercial apps or courses.

... after relaxing and breathing naturally ...

You have calm the bodily fabrications as per the Suttas
See:

How is the Pali Phase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." Interpreted as per Different Linage?
How does one calm one's bodily fabrications?
page 35, Knowing and Seeing, 4th Edition, by Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw

... focusing on the space between oneself and external objects ...

This paragraph sounds like the space Kasina. This type of meditation (Bhavana) is best done under a guidance of a teacher. For more information see: page 66, Knowing and Seeing, 4th Edition, by Ven. Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw. One famous Samatha master is Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw. Perhaps you can do a retreat at his monastery or under a student teacher.

... more compassionate person ...

Perhaps you can try developing sublime attitudes (loving-kindness or benevolence or friendliness, compassion, empathetic joy, equanimity)

Should I switch gears to another, less advanced samatha practice now, or stay on my current path?

This you have to decide. Best is to get a teacher especially if you want to do Samatha. Try World Buddhist Directory or http://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/.

Alternatively, I could test out the other methods for a bit. But which one?

You can also try: https://www.dhamma.org/en/index, http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html.

"merging the mind with space"
This sounds like trying to emulate a formless jhana. To attain the formless jhanas before the form jhanas is unstable and advised against by Buddha. He even went so far as to say that those who do this--even attaining the 4th jhana before mastering the 1st jhana--could regress perpetually (due to bad habits).
Samatha practice is ideally breathing practice and ideally leads to the first four jhanas and their corresponding factors.
Simple as that.
I would recommend reading anapanasati and The Six Dharma Gates to the Sublime for more varied techniques on breathing practice--straight from orthodox Buddhism. In addition, if you  have the time, I would suggest reading Master Huai-Chin Nan's material.
Below is an excerpt that may help put emphasis on the right things:

When sitting in meditation the mind becomes refined, but whatever
  state it's in we should try to be aware of it, to know it. Mental
  activity is there together with tranquillity. There is vitakka.
  Vitakka is the action of bringing the mind to the theme of
  contemplation. If there is not much mindfulness, there will be not
  much vitakka.
Then vicāra, the contemplation around that theme, follows. Various
  weak mental impressions may arise from time to time, but our
  self-awareness is the important thing; whatever may be happening we
  know it continuously. As we go deeper we are constantly aware of the
  state of our meditation, knowing whether or not the mind is firmly
  established. Thus, both concentration and awareness are present.
To have a peaceful mind does not mean that there's nothing happening;
  mental impressions do arise. For instance, when we talk about the
  first level of absorption, we say it has five factors. Along with
  vitakka and vicāra, pīti (rapture) arises with the theme of
  contemplation and then sukha (happiness). These four things all lie
  together in the mind established in tranquillity. They are as one
  state.
The fifth factor is ekaggatā or one-pointedness. You may wonder how
  there can be one-pointedness when there are all these other factors as
  well. This is because they all become unified on that foundation of
  tranquility. Together they are called a state of samādhi. They are not
  everyday states of mind, they are factors of absorption.
There are these five characteristics, but they do not disturb the
  basic tranquility. There is vitakka, but it does not disturb the mind;
  vicāra, rapture and happiness arise but do not disturb the mind. The
  mind is therefore as one with these factors. The first level of
  absorption is like this.
We don't have to call it first jhāna, second jhāna, third jhāna and so
  on, let's just call it 'a peaceful mind.' As the mind becomes
  progressively calmer it will dispense with vitakka and vicāra, leaving
  only rapture and happiness. Why does the mind discard vitakka and
  vicāra? This is because, as the mind becomes more refined, the
  activities of vitakka and vicāra are too coarse to remain. At this
  stage, as the mind leaves off vitakka and vicāra, feelings of great
  rapture can arise, tears may gush out.
But as the samādhi deepens rapture, too, is discarded, leaving only
  happiness and one-pointedness, until finally even happiness goes and
  the mind reaches its greatest refinement. There are only equanimity
  and one-pointedness, all else has been left behind. The mind stands
  unmoving.
Once the mind is peaceful this can happen. You don't have to think a
  lot about it, it just happens by itself when the causal factors are
  ripe. This is called the energy of a peaceful mind. In this state the
  mind is not drowsy; the five hindrances, sense desire, aversion,
  restlessness, dullness and doubt, have all fled.
But if mental energy is still not strong and mindfulness weak, there
  will occasionally arise intruding mental impressions. The mind is
  peaceful, but it's as if there's a 'cloudiness' within the calm. It's
  not a normal sort of drowsiness though; some impressions will manifest
  - maybe we'll hear a sound or see a dog or something. It's not really clear, but it's not a dream either. This is because these five factors
  have become unbalanced and weak.
The mind tends to play tricks within these levels of tranquility.
  'Imagery' will sometimes arise when the mind is in this state, through
  any of the senses, and the meditator may not be able to tell exactly
  what is happening. ''Am I sleeping? No. Is it a dream? No, it's not a
  dream...'' These impressions arise from a middling sort of
  tranquillity; but if the mind is truly calm and clear, we don't doubt
  the various mental impressions or imagery which arise. Questions like,
  ''Did I drift off then? Was I sleeping? Did I get lost?...'' don't
  arise, for they are characteristics of a mind which is still doubting.
  ''Am I asleep or awake?''... Here, the mind is fuzzy. This is the mind
  getting lost in its moods.
It's like the moon going behind a cloud. You can still see the moon
  but the clouds covering it render it hazy. It's not like the moon
  which has emerged from behind the clouds clear, sharp and bright.
When the mind is peaceful and established firmly in mindfulness and
  self-awareness, there will be no doubt concerning the various
  phenomena which we encounter. The mind will truly be beyond the
  hindrances. We will clearly know everything which arises in the mind
  as it is. We do not doubt, because the mind is clear and bright. The
  mind which reaches samādhi is like this.
Ajahn Chah (1919-1992)

excerpted from A Taste of Freedom from A Collection of Dhammatalks by Ajahn Chah