text:
Is the Mahayana shunyata same as the Theravada papanca?
I originally wondered whether the Mahayana shunyata (emptiness) is same as the Theravada sankhara (conditioned and compounded phenomena). The problem here is that Mahayana shunyata says even Nibbana is empty, but Theravada's sankhara does not include Nibbana. So, this does not match.
But after a lot of discussion here, I find that the Mahayana shunyata (emptiness) could be equivalent to the Theravada papanca (objectification-classification or reification), as found in MN 18 and Sutta Nipata 4.14. And Sutta Nipata 4.14 states that the root of papanca is "I am the thinker".
I could say that all papanca is empty of essence or substance.
How somebody (who is not an ariya) imagines Nibbana to be, is the papanca of it in his mind. In that sense, the papanca of Nibbana is empty of essence or substance.
How somebody (who is not an ariya) imagines a chair to be, is the papanca of it in his mind. In that sense, the papanca of a chair is empty of essence or substance.
Even the papanca of papanca itself is empty of essence or substance. This corresponds to Mahayana shunyata's emptiness of emptiness.
So, does it make sense to say that the Mahayana shunyata is same as the Theravada papanca?
Thanissaro Bhikkhu's explanation of papañca in MN 18:

Translating papañca: As one writer has noted, the word papañca has had
  a wide variety of meanings in Indian thought, with only one constant:
  in Buddhist philosophical discourse it carries negative connotations,
  usually of falsification and distortion. The word itself is derived
  from a root that means diffuseness, spreading, proliferating. The Pali
  Commentaries define papañca as covering three types of thought:
  craving, conceit, and views. They also note that it functions to slow
  the mind down in its escape from samsara. Because its categories begin
  with the objectifying thought, "I am the thinker," I have chosen to
  render the word as "objectification," although some of the following
  alternatives might be acceptable as well: self-reflexive thinking,
  reification, proliferation, complication, elaboration, distortion. The
  word offers some interesting parallels to the postmodern notion of
  logocentric thinking, but it's important to note that the Buddha's
  program of deconstructing this process differs sharply from that of
  postmodern thought.

From Sutta Nipata 4.14:

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
  about seclusion & the state of peace.
  Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
  clinging to nothing in the world?"
  "He should put an entire stop
  to the root of objectification-classifications (papañca):
  'I am the thinker.'
Commentary (Thanissaro):
  On objectification-classifications and their
  role in leading to conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to
  MN 18. The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of
  these classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a
  set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought;
  identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and
  physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms
  a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine
  these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they
  are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that
  we would be better off to be able to drop them.

Note: a very closely related question here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26819/what-is-papa%C3%B1ca

Maybe this could help clarify: does Theravada view the self of persons as papanca? That to understand anatta is to refute papanca of persons?

Anatta removes the root of papanca which is "I am the thinker", as found in Sutta Nipata 4.14: ""I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer, about seclusion & the state of peace. Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to nothing in the world?" "He should put an entire stop to the root of objectification-classifications: 'I am the thinker.'"

I agree with @Andrei Papanca means proliferation, or making more out of things than they are. It's not emptiness at all.

Yes, more or less.
Although, strictly speaking you are making a category error.
Shunyata refers to the fact that everything is an abstraction, simplification, subjective observation, and that in fact everything appears from interaction of a bunch of processes (known in this context as "causes and conditions") - including the process of perception. Shunyata and Sankhara are closely related.
While Papanca refers to the process by which we take that empty stuff, those appearances, and because of ignorance assign to them the status of real, objective, clearly delineated things.
Papanca is something that can be stopped through Buddhist education. But Shunyata cannot be stopped, it's a fundamental law.
In one sense they are opposite: Papanca is "bad" (because when mind does Papanca - it's confused) - but Shunyata is "good" (because when mind sees Shunyata - it's enlightened).
You are right about Nirvana. It's empty when you think about it as the object of your mind. But when you actually realize that everything is Shunyata and stop clinging to things because of that (including clinging to the concepts of Nirvana and Shunyata) - now that's real Nirvana which is not empty.

Hard to answer your question without categorising somehow. I will answer in pure sutric Mahayana terms, that is in terms of Yogacara which is a base from which later developments happen in Mahayana, it also exists in majority of Mahayana which is Chan/Zen and Pure Land.

The problem here is that Mahayana shunyata says even Nibbana is empty,
  but Theravada's sankhara does not include Nibbana. So, this does not
  match.

For instance within framework of both Sautrāntika and Yogacara, the general separation of purely conceptual phenomena would be non-existent and existent. Nibbana is existent conceptual phenomenon since it's possible (theoretically) to attain it versus impossible, like becoming a God, or a Papa Smurf.
Still, the difference among existent phenomena is that Nirvana is a concept that is relative to the various factors, it cannot be simply explained by mere ideas, it can only have a blueprint to which we, depending on situation and a given karmic burden, draw up and imagine different lines on the very sheet of paper. At a given moment it is like a single page in a colour book that we colour differently whenever it comes to mind. It is not a general characteristic of anything graspable, it cannot come from the touch with reality, it is not there and it does not function. This is not what is claimed in Theravada, things are Good or Bad and Samsara is opposed to Nirvana as hard, concrete things; in here (non-sunyata) there is little room for liberation based on reflection on absolute dualities formed by some inherent bias or absolutist tendencies.

So, does it make sense to say that the Mahayana shunyata is same as
  the Theravada papanca?

So, in the light of this question, let us navigate towards dependent things - "real" things, like a flower. Whatever is there in reality, in terms of Theravada, is the direct source of representation of the object. That means that object of reality already has all the labels and characteristics (i.e. colour, size, shape etc), and conceptually they arise from the vision of the earth for instance. It is as if to say that these objects already possess these characteristics that make it earth. That is very different from later Mahayana developments.
Firstly, there are two layers added on top of that in Mahayana related to phenomena. On the conceptual level, as I have mentioned, in the whole Mahayana vs Theravada debate, there is inherent divergence regarding things conceptual like Samsara and Nirvana. This layer of purely conceptual things not being real was already added by Sautrāntika, and was a first distinction between early Theravadin understanding. But on dependent phenomena level, "real" level it is pretty much the same. By the same I mean that in Sautrāntika when one is looking at things non-conceptually, this is what happens: all nonstatic phenomena that perform functions truly exist and give characteristics to conceptual phenomena. At this point Sautrāntika had single point of touch with traditional Theravada, but Yogacara diverged in this point completely, and this complete diversion constitutes Mahayana's sunyata.
Yogacara proposed that at this point, everything that we perceive non-conceptually is based on a first, bare perception of consciousness (by alayavijnana or senses), and that is instantly tainted by karmic seeds - those are preconceptions we developed in the past, like being prejudiced against Islam. We actually perceive it already tainted, even non-conceptually. This implies complete nonduality of the natal source of where objects and mental phenomena come from and manifest to us. Here, things appear from mind both conceptually and non-conceptually (mind-only). They don't come characterised from external source but Self pre-characterises them from the start. Immaturity of Self grasping aspect (Manas) and past karma characterise them. All of these preconditions are capable of creating mood and feeling or sensation before a thought or actual deliberate grasping is to be perceived and neutralised. This is seen in the way of not being able to release oneself from fixations, bad habits or having prejudices by attaining some views. The key is ultimately in karma and transforming karmic seeds to transform how objects appear to us in the first place.
From that point a base was formed for further elaboration by Tibetans for example, they especially developed these notions in non-sutra and strictly speaking not "core" Mahayana.
Ultimately, from my point of view, and note that this is just my humble opinion, the concept of sunyata is important for understanding the path to liberation.
In the context of what I have written, Nirvana is empty, it is not a real thing, it comes from the mind and mind is the monarch. It makes sunyata very very different from papanca. In the way that it is much much more elaborated, philosophically.
Sunyata makes sense within the context framework of reconciling two truths; conventional and ultimate, how do they relate to each other, whereas papanca is simply about Self apprehension of the objects that exist as true external sources of characteristics, which is negated in the former. In sunyata, no absolutely infallible reality exists as a direct source to mental fabrications due to posing additional karmic layers in-between.

Important disclaimer: By saying that Mahayana diverges or disagrees with Theravada, I don't meant that things were that crystal clear in Theravadin context; much of what is today implied is just a result of interpretation of something that wasn't deliberately confirmed, nor denied by Buddha.
Another point is that representations of sunyata along with commentary are vast and have some differences (especially in Tibetan context). To actually try to say that it is like this or like that in this context here, would not make me Mahayanist at all, but a dualistic old fart. Thus, I will not make such fixed attempts and chose Yogacara as a reference point, since it has common grounding foundation in most schools.

The problem here is that Mahayana shunyata says even Nibbana is empty, but Theravada's sankhara does not include Nibbana. So, this does not match.

Theravāda's suññata, anattā, included nibbāna. But mahāyāna's nibbāna is attā of Theravāda. It is the same reason of nikāya-separation in Abh. Katha. age as well.
VN Parivāra:

Saṅkhāra, which means saṅkhata(effect-saṅkhāra)*, is
  anicca&dukkha&anattā;
But only nibbāna&paññatti which are explained just as anattā.

KN Dhammapada has the same explanation.

Prapanca and Sunyata are two different things altogether, in fact, they both have somewhat opposite meanings, the Sunyata can be experienced after attaining Nibhana, but Prapanca is empty words or worthless talk that can create causes (karma) hence can never attain Nibbhana. To create a cause the primary source is sankhara and it has three types of emotional experiences, those are - like, dislike and equanimity, basically Upaadana (clinging) sanskaras are- likes and dislike ( attraction and repulsion), these two types of mental formations which are the primary source of Re-Birth process hence Prapanca (empty or baseless or pointless talk) is due to ignorance.


text:
What does MN 18's "delineate a delineation" phrase mean?
What is the meaning of the phrase "delineate a delineation" from MN 18?
What is its message?
Is it connecting papanca (objectification-classification or reification) with dependent origination?

"Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is
  eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. (Note1) When there is a delineation of contact, it
  is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of
  perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that
  one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions
  & categories of objectification.
"When there is the ear...
"When there is the nose...
"When there is the tongue...
"When there is the body...
"When there is the intellect, when there are ideas, when there is
  intellect-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is
  possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there
  is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception,
  it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When
  there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will
  delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions &
  categories of objectification.
"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no
  eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is
  impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of
  perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible
  that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the
  perceptions & categories of objectification.
"When there is no ear...
"When there is no nose...
"When there is no tongue...
"When there is no body...
"When there is no intellect, when there are no ideas, when there is no
  intellect-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is
  impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of
  perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible
  that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the
  perceptions & categories of objectification.
Note1 (Thanissaro commentary):
  The artificiality of this phrase — "delineate a delineation" — seems
  intentional. It underlines the artifice implicit in the process by
  which the mind, in singling out events, turns them into discrete
  things.

This is not an answer since this is tagged pali canon, but note how similar the phrasing in that "no eye, no nose ..." is to the Heart Sutra.

@YesheTenley It says "when there is no eye, ...". It does not say "there is no eye".

actually it says, "Shariputra, therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compositional factors, no consciousness;
no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; ... "

And if your formulation is correct it might be something like "in no papanca, there is no form, no feeling, ... no eye, etc

The sutta is unrelated to the comments of Yeshe Tenley.

Ven. Bodhi's MN 18 version:

"When there is the eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact.233 When there is the manifestation of contact, it is possible to point out the manifestation of feeling. When there is the manifestation of feeling, it is possible to point out the manifestation of perception..."

and footnote:

The Pali idiom phassapaññattiª paññ›pessati, in which the verb takes an object derived from itself, is difficult. Ñm originally rendered “that one will describe a description of contact.” “To point out a manifestation” is less literal, but it should do justice to the meaning without jeopardising intelligibility. MA says that this passage is intended to show the entire round of existence (va˛˛a) by way of the twelve sense bases; §18 shows the cessation of the round (viva˛˛a) by the negation of the twelve sense bases.

Prof. Piya Tan shares similar explanation:

So vat‟āvuso cakkhusmi sati rpe sati cakkhu,viāe sati phassa,paatti paāpessatîti hāna. Comy says that this passage shows the entire round of existence (vaā) by way of the 12 sense-bases. The next section [§18] shows the cessation of the round (vivaa) by the negation of the 12 sense-bases. (MA 2:78). The structure paatti paāpessati (lit “he describes the description,” “he defines the definition”) is idiomatic, meaning simply “he describes; he defines.” Paraphrased, this sentence may also read “It is possible to define contact as the meeting of sense-organ, sense-object and sense-consciousness.”

Your understanding is correct that this passage links Papanca with Dependent Origination.
The phrase they translate as "delineate a delineation" is what I would translate as "notion of X is getting established" or "concept X gets manifested" or "phenomenon X emerges", or "experience of X is experienced".
The phrase they translate as "it is possible", I would translate "this is possible to see" or "this can be understood". In my opinion, it's not part if the explanation of what's happening, instead it's a comment Buddha makes about us students.
Altogether, in my understanding, X-paññattiṃ-paññāpessatīti-ṭhānametaṃ-vijjati means [the phenomenon X]-[emerges]-[this can be]-[understood]
The significance of "phenomenon ... emerges" here is to emphasize that we are talking about the subjective experience slowly forming, we are talking about representation. So the Contact, Vedana, etc. refer to subjective experiences taking shape.
For example, the Contact is not the physical contact between the object and the sensory organ - it is the emergent experience of "contact" experienced "in the mind". Same goes for Vedana, Sanjna, and Vitakka.
As the representation develops from complete nondifferentiation to complete individuation, each new phenomenon takes shape and serves as a foundation for the next dependent phenomenon to emerge.
In other words, from interaction of physical and mental processes there arises the representational phenomenon of "contact with an external object", only when Contact has been established and reified, can the next phenomenon, "the result of the contact" (i.e. Vedana), be experienced. Then, once both Contact and Result can be experienced, mind learns to associate the identifying feature of the object with the feeling it causes. This is Sanjna (Pali "Sanna"). Now when the "sign" of the object is recognized, the feeling is remembered. Once this ability develops, the next phenomenon, Vitakka can emerge. This is when the mind can recall the image of the object together with the feeling it brings. The vicara of this vitakka is what's known as tanha or craving. When this is established, the next step is Papanca or turning the idea about an object and the feeling it brings into an impulse or intent to pursue and acquire the object in order to experience the feeling. This fantasy about being there with the object, experiencing the nice feeling is what creates Becoming. First there's fantazy about the desired state, then goal-driven action to get it, then the past and present are connected together to create an idea of Self going from point A to point B.

It appears the phrase "paññattiṃ paññāpessatīti" (translated by Thanissaro as "delineate a delineation") from MN 18 is not connecting 'papanca' ('objectification') with dependent origination. Instead, it appears the word "paññāpessatīti" is merely saying when what is known as contact is known, feeling can be known (etc, etc). In others words, the word "paññāpessatīti" itself does not appear to be a synonym for 'pananca' ('monkey chatter').

It’s simply impossible to reject this basic principle of contentment, and point out a true ascetic or brahmin who covets sensual pleasures
  with acute lust.
So vata, paribbājakā, anabhijjhaṃ dhammapadaṃ paccakkhāya abhijjhāluṃ kāmesu tibbasārāgaṃ samaṇaṃ vā brāhmaṇaṃ vā paññāpessatīti netaṃ
  ṭhānaṃ vijjati.
AN 4.30

When there is the eye (cakkhusmiṃ), sights (rūpe) and eye consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇe), it exist (vijjati) possible
  (ṭhānametaṃ) to point out  (paññāpessatīti) what’s known (paññattiṃ)
  as  ‘contact’ (phassa).
MN 18

paññatti feminine making known, manifestation, description, designation, name, idea notion, concept

Its probably best to stick with Bodhi's or Sujato's translations and avoid Thanissaro's Mahayana tendencies (as found in his erroneous translation of MN 1).

When there is the eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact. When there is the
  manifestation of contact, it is possible to point out the
  manifestation of feeling. When there is the manifestation of feeling,
  it is possible to point out the manifestation of perception...
  (Bodhi)

When there is the eye, sights, and eye consciousness, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘contact’. (Sujato)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddhavamsa and the 29 Buddhas
I’m trying to find the truth behind religious movements, for so far possible of course. I admit, it’s with a selfish goal, but it’s important for me. I want to find my way in Life and try to understand things about Life. Alas I am a little skeptical about things.
I’m trying to learn as much as possible from the main religions, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam (and of course I try to learn things about the Jewish faith and Hinduism).  What they all have in common is the written sources are all written many years after that the “main person” – the Founder – is deceased. The gospels are written many years after the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ, the Pali Canon is written about two/three hundred years after Gautama the Buddha, and the Quran more than twenty years after Muhammad the Prophet. All texts seems to be composed by followers who decides which texts to be sacred and which text are had to left outside the canon. And all have in common that believers believe that they contain the thru words of the founder.
After reading the Quran, also a composed book by followers, I decided that this book does not contain the words of a God or whatever Devine being. I contain so much threats to humans that I cannot believe that a divine creature is the source of this text. With the exceptional rude text that when you are a Muslim, and you think about changing to another believe, Allah will torture you forever by burning off your skin, let it grow again, and burn it again, etcetera. Next page there was written Allah is merciful. I cannot think of a better contradiction in one book itself. And there are so much other threads to otherwise-believers that I think this book should be forbidden. There are many rules maybe written down by his followers after his life to maintain the status quo.
Jesus Christ on the other side amazes me with his Message of Love. But what about Paul and Peter, did they really wrote down the words of God? So many rules, rules never spoke out by Jesus. But written down by Paul and Peter.
So I come to the Buddhism. I really understand that it is not a religion in the way of the two here above mentioned. I don’t know much about Buddhism but I think to understand that the concept of a God was not the foremost concern of Gautama the Buddha, since it was not possible to learn about this concept during Human Life. I also understand that he is not THE only Buddha. I think his original message had some complex elements for a layman, but was great with also still a simple one.
I have the impression that after his life his followers made up many rules, rituals, maybe not with the origin of Gautama. Some will say that this is because the Shakyamuni Buddha is not the only Buddha. And he is not the foundation of the Buddhism movement, but it started before him.
So I come to my question, after this long intro: the Buddhavamsa mentions about 29 Buddhas, including Maitreya. Twenty seven before Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha. This raiser a few questions to me. I hope you can answer these as exact as possible.
1-  If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism why where these Buddhas not worldly known to be in existence before his life? Why took it hundreds of years before they were mentioned in Holy Scripts? Now it seems to me that Buddhism followers made them up to declare and explain rules and things in their canon. Wrote down their names to upgrade the core of their faith.
2-  Is the Buddhavamsa the first Holy Scripture where the Buddhas of the Past are all mentioned?
3-  Who wrote this scripture?
4-  So far as I understand (have read) Gautama mentions only six Buddhas during his life. How can persons than know the names of the other Buddhas after the death of Gautama without making this up? Because there is no record that he did mention them his self?
5-  How can we ever know the name of the Buddhas who lived hundreds of thousand years before us? Like Dipankara Buddha and even the ones before?
6-  Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?
I know I sound skeptical, but that is not the purpose. I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist. I want to follow only what the Devine Beings want to teach up (for so far they exist) and not to follow rules and stories made up by men. So I hope to learn from your answers.
With kind regards, Johan

If you're interested in the "message" or doctrine (e.g. of Jesus and so on) then I'm surprised it's the Buddhavamsa (i.e. names of previous Buddhas) that interests you, rather than e.g. the suttas and/or a biography of the Buddha?

Generally the introduction (i.e. the first 6 or 7 paragraphs) seems unrelated to the question (about the Buddhavamsa). The first paragraphs are -- 1) My search for the truth behind several religious movements. 2) Texts were written after the "main person's" death. How did they choose which texts to include in the canon? 3) and 4) The message in the doctrines -- do they make sense, are they contradictory, and was it only the disciples who wrote them? 5) Buddhist doctrine is not about God, is complex and simple. 6) The origins of rules and rituals.

Anyway you make these statements in paragraphs 1 through 6 but then don't ask anything about them -- I don't understand that -- instead you ask about who wrote the Buddhavamsa.

Probably the answer you are looking can be found in this question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28467/why-are-all-the-buddhas-born-in-indian-subcontinent-only

I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist.  <--- The only sense you will need is the realization of the Four Noble Truths.
The six questions you raised, are no where near most important if one wants to be a practicing Buddhist, or not.

Hi Krizalid, first of all thanks for the answer. You are absolutely right, but then again not completely right.
You are absolutely right about the Four Noble Truths, that’s what I meant with the simple message of Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha. This, and the Eightfold path, attracts me as a pure message.

But you are not completely right, for me as a western thinker, because my six questions are (just few) examples of my questions which are raised in my search for the plain pure teachings of the Buddha. If texts, like about the Buddha’s of the Past, are made up by Monks and Followers who just used it to make their learning more “beefy” it will distract me from the core of Buddhism. For me, maybe because I am still not able to think out off the box,  is it important that what I learn is the Truth. If the knowledge of the Buddhas of the past is “a tale” it should be skipped from the scripture.

Not a problem we all need to start from somewhere. For you I would recommend you do more reading on different aspects of Buddhism, from both Mahayana to Theravada. You are right that the teachings are based on scriptures written years after, however what you will learn is not just text, but also personal experience and Monks experience upon practicing the teachings.

In your journey you will have numerous questions to ask, on the teachings and doctrine. You may find one will contradict another, but that is merely because you/our understanding is not comprehensive enough yet. I know how you feel as I come from a very western background as well as western religions since childhood.

If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism etc.
I don't know who wrote the Buddhavamsa and why.
Perhaps it's not important, and can be ignored? It's hard to find an English-language translation of it -- which implies to me that the many venerable monks, who have kindly translated so many of the other suttas, consider it secondary.
Wikipedia says:

Along with the Apadāna and the Cariyāpiṭaka, the Buddhavamsa is considered by most scholars to have been written during the 1st and 2nd century BCE, and is therefore a late addition to the Pāli Canon.

To answer or reply to the first paragraphs of your question, I think we're meant to understand that:

Gautama Buddha discovered Buddhism -- i.e. discovered and taught the Dhamma
Previous (pre-historic) Buddhas had done the same, but their teaching had been forgotten -- so Gautama rediscovered it.
I think a sasana is the period of time/history during which the teachings of a specific Buddha are remembered ... perhaps 1000s of years. The next Buddha will be needed after all traces of Buddhism associated with this Buddha -- including enlightened states, Buddhist practices, Buddhist texts, and the Buddhist monks and nuns -- have disappeared.
The Duration of the Sasana of Buddha Gotama says,

In the Anagatavamsa commentary, the Buddha is said to preface the account of the future Buddha Ariya Metteyya by saying his own dispensation will disappear in five stages: (1) the disappearance of analytical insight (patisambhida), (2) the disappearance of the Paths and Fruition States, (3) the disappearance of the practice (patipatti), (4) the disappearance of the texts (pariyatti), and (5) the disappearance of the Sangha.

The Buddhavamsa ... is the fourteenth book of the Khuddaka Nikāya, which in turn is the fifth and last division of the Sutta Piṭaka.[3] The Sutta Piṭaka is one of three pitakas (main sections) which together constitute the Tripiṭaka, or Pāli Canon of Theravāda Buddhism.

The first four divisions of the Sutta Piṭaka (unlike the Khuddaka Nikāya) contain suttas which were (allegedly) spoken by the Buddha and/or by various named disciples during his life. Monks met immediately after his death to decide to what to remember as doctrine -- for details see Buddhist councils.
The rules and rituals, of monastic life, were likewise defined during the Buddha's life. The Buddha gave them permission to change less-important rules, but I think they decided they couldn't be sure which rules were less important and so preserved them all.
Other rites and rituals were developed over time -- anything to do with Buddhist art, for example -- sometimes influenced by later teachers and contemporary beliefs.

I don't know why there's any Buddhist doctrine about cosmology -- that the universe is cyclic, that there were previous Buddhas:

Perhaps (I imagine) it's to emphasise that people don't escape samsara by simply dying (i.e. they need to practice).
Perhaps it's something to do with a proof of legitimacy (i.e. this Buddha's being endorsed or confirmed by previous Buddhas)

Anyway I think that (by definition) little is known about previous Buddhas and their doctrine. The only datum I'm aware is from the Dhammapada:

Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of [[all]] the Buddhas.
Verse 184: The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.
Verse 185: Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?
As I said above -- according to the doctrine, which says there were previous Buddhas, they would have done so ("launch Buddhism") but it was forgotten in time. I think that Buddhism defines "a Buddha" as someone who is not only enlightened, but someone who became enlightened after discovering Buddhism for themselves, at a time when the previous Buddha's doctrine had been forgotten. So there's only one Buddha in any given age or sasana.
I think his original message had some complex elements for a layman, but was great with also still a simple one.
I think that is the important bit, the Buddha's doctrine or Dhamma:

Maybe that starts with the doctrine of the "four noble truths"
Or maybe it starts with doctrine about morality.

According to the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65) people shouldn't base their beliefs on canonical authority, lineage, who the teacher is -- and instead they should believe a doctrine when "you know for yourself" that the doctrine is beneficial, blameless, praised by the wise.

Hi Chris, thanks for your extensive answer. There are a lot of points in it, in which I “can find myself”. It has broaden my insight. I now know that I have to think in cycles. In each cycle the “world decays from insight to superficiality”. After the end of the period a Buddha appears to enlighten the world with fresh insights, so to say.
In that way it is easy to understand that we don’t know much about “Buddhism” before the start of a new period, since everything of the Holy Learning is forgotten at the end a period. And that there where indeed Buddha’s before the Present One.

But then again, for me as a layman – who want to learn about Buddhism - it is strange that there are monks (or who-ever) who can past the borders of these periods and write down the names etc. of the Buddha’s of the Past. Maybe just to strengthen the canonical authority of their believe, or be more important their self or for whatever reason. For people with a stupid skeptical mind as I it broadens the gap instead of closing the gap to acceptance.

But I agree with you (and Krizalid) that the (answers to) the written texts in the Buddhavamsa are of secondary importance. So you are right when you say “people shouldn't base their beliefs on canonical authority, lineage, who the teacher is -- and instead they should believe a doctrine when "you know for yourself" that the doctrine is beneficial, blameless, praised by the wise.”.
Still I want to learn as much as possible by reading text that come as close as possible from the Buddha himself. Which scriptures can you recommitment me as “most close to the words of Guatama?

@Johan Some people (maybe "orthodox Buddhists") profess a belief in the whole canon (and perhaps believe a text because it was accepted as "canonical"). My opinion is that the original "words of the Buddha" were added to, later on, over the centuries; of which some additions may be worthwhile, and some others are less so. For example, the reference I studied in this answer persuaded me that someone had (later) added a line to one of the suttas -- for whatever reasons of their own.

And speaking of "skepticism" there are also some "supernatural" elements in Buddhist stories: which some Westerners find it difficut to accept literally, for example including: heavens and hells; cosmology; the Buddha's talking with Gods sometimes and vice versa; maybe the doctrine of "rebirth", too. Various people take these in different way: accept them literally, somehow; or interpret them as metaphors; disbelieve; be agnostic ("I don't know"). IMO I don't want to ignore the whole doctrine merely because someone added something to it later, nor even because I don't understand it all.

I think the most popular introductions to Buddhism begin with the story of the Buddha's life, including the "legendary" Four sights. But I think a consensus from the topic Introductory books to Buddhism was perhaps either What the Buddha Taught or In the Buddha's Words (both can be found as free PDFs online). After that maybe this or this ... or something more Mahayana though I couldn't tell you what.

I’m a practicing Buddhist and do not have all the answers but I believe what you are trying to do is to pick out the most “truthful/logical” religion and some of the questions you ask are to provide you with proof as to which religion to ultimately accept.
In regards to some of your questions, remember it’s historical literature passed down through the generations; his-story. So along the way, things were definitely added. But if I can entertain your question about how many Buddhas, Buddhism teaches that rebirth is endless and based on the size of the universe, Buddhas came and went throughout; so it’s probably not just here on earth. In historical context, during the time of the Gautama Buddha, earth’s developed human civilization was fairly young. (when we went from hunters and gathers to being agrarians)
But knowing what is actually accurate or exaggerated isn’t really the point, the Buddha’s fundamental teachings were to escape suffering. The only proof you need is that there is suffering and that you should look towards to ending it.

Hi, thanks for your reaction.
"proof as to which religion to ultimately accept." - proof is a harsh word. Since in religion proof is always subjective. I know what you mean, but perhaps it's better to say "a convincing teaching".
“the Buddha’s fundamental teachings were to escape suffering. The only proof you need is that there is suffering and that you should look towards to ending it.”
Yes, I agree with you that this is the core of the original teachings of the Buddha.
That’s why I try for myself to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Best of luck on your journey.

11. Those who mistake the unessential to be essential and the essential to be unessential, dwelling in wrong thoughts, never arrive
  at the essential.
12. Those who know the essential to be essential and the unessential to be unessential, dwelling in right thoughts, do arrive at the
  essential.
Dhammmapada

the Buddhavamsa mentions about 29 Buddhas, including Maitreya. Twenty seven before Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha.

I have practised then studied Buddhism near 30 years but never read the Buddhavamsa. The Buddhavamsa is a later text not attributed to the Buddha. Along with the Apadāna and the Cariyāpiṭaka, the Buddhavamsa is considered by most scholars to have been written during the 1st and 2nd century BCE, and is therefore a late addition to the Pāli Canon.

This raiser a few questions to me. I hope you can answer these as exact as possible.

In Buddhism, only verifiable truth can be exact.

1- If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism why where these Buddhas not worldly known to be in existence before his life? Why took
  it hundreds of years before they were mentioned in Holy Scripts? Now
  it seems to me that Buddhism followers made them up to declare and
  explain rules and things in their canon. Wrote down their names to
  upgrade the core of their faith.

Gautama is the only known founder of Buddhism. There are previous Buddha's also mention in some Pali suttas attributed to the Buddha but because these suttas are so few it is unlikely they were actually spoken by the Buddha. The fact that all of these past Buddha's are said to have lived in India shows these stories are unlikely to be true. Past Buddha's are particularly mentioned in the Digha Nikaya; which is regarded by most scholars as a set of suttas compiled for propagation to and conversion of Brahmans. Therefore, many of the mythical  Digha Nikaya suttas should be treated with skepticism.

2- Is the Buddhavamsa the first Holy Scripture where the Buddhas of the Past are all mentioned?

The question cannot be answered. Since there are certain but extremely few suttas attributed to the Buddha that share the language & ideas of the Buddhavamsa and Apadāna; it is most likely those extremely few suttas are later composition added to the suttas and falsely attributed to the Buddha. Given these questionable suttas contradict the core suttas; they are probably false suttas.

3- Who wrote this scripture?

I don't know. Maybe an influential cleric under the orders of King Ashoka to create Buddhist propaganda to convert Brahmans (Hindus) to Buddhism.

4- So far as I understand (have read) Gautama mentions only six Buddhas during his life. How can persons than know the names of the
  other Buddhas after the death of Gautama without making this up?
  Because there is no record that he did mention them his self?

The above cannot be verified as true. It is most likely made up. It is unimportant. It is unrelated to the essence & fundamentals of Buddhism. The fact there are stories of certain disciples who studied under the past Buddhas contradicts the doctrine of not-self (anatta) and particularly contradicts the meaning of "past abodes" (wrongly translated as "past lives") found in SN 22.79. Any ideas about literal "past lives" is contrary to SN 22.79 and contrary to the True Dhamma.

5- How can we ever know the name of the Buddhas who lived hundreds of thousand years before us? Like Dipankara Buddha and even the ones
  before?

We can't.

6- Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?

Because people lived in caves & grunted like animals.

I know I sound skeptical, but that is not the purpose.

It is important to be skeptical about these unimportant matters.

I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist.

These things are unrelated to being a Buddhist. They are not the fundamentals of the Holy Life. The Buddha often scolded people for such obsessions.

I want to follow only what the Divine Beings want to teach up (for so far they exist) and not to follow rules and stories made up by men. So
  I hope to learn from your answers.

If you want to learn about Buddhism, start with the 1st three sermons of the Buddha.

"Because people lived in caves & grunted like animals." - haha, nice answer  ;)

Dhammadhatu, I thank you for your honest answers. I like and appreciate that. That’s what I miss in many “true” believers, for example especially in Islam where the totally deny that written texts in a holy book can be altered by people, many times with a purpose. A thought that can lead to severe punishment.
I also thank you for your links, especially the last URL.

In Christianity and Judaism, it's perhaps important to trace the personal history and genealogy of Jesus and Moses all the way back to Adam. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, did not perform miracles and did not die on the cross, there would be no Christianity, regardless of what Jesus taught. If Moses did not encounter God as the burning bush and did not perform miracles, there would be no Judaism, regardless of what Moses taught.
But in Buddhism, tracing the history of the Buddhas or even the personal history of Gautama Buddha is not important compared to the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The miracles or powers attributed to Gautama Buddha is also not important compared to his teachings. In fact, even if Gautama Buddha never existed historically, the teachings attributed to him would still be relevant and useful in the path to the end of suffering.
I'm sure there are parts of the Pali Canon (also known as Tripitaka or Tipitaka) which are more important and more credible than other parts. This applies to scriptures of other religions too. For e.g. the Synoptic Gospels of the Bible are more important than Song of Songs.
For the core teachings of the Buddha, I would suggest to focus on the Sutta Pitaka. The Sutta Pitaka is composed of the Digha Nikaya (DN), Majjhima Nikaya (MN), Samyutta Nikaya (SN), Anguttara Nikaya (AN) and Khuddaka Nikaya (KN).
The Khuddaka Nikaya is the minor collection which is composed of 15 to 18 books, of which the most important are the Sutta Nipata, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Theragatha and Therigatha. You can safely omit the rest of the books in KN including Buddhavamsa.
If you want to narrow down further, I would suggest reading the question "Chronological or other sequence for beginners", particularly this answer.
Also, Bhikkhu Bodhi's book "In the Buddha's Words", mentioned in this answer would also be an excellent choice of a thematically and systematically arranged anthology that selects the most important suttas for inclusion in a 512-page book, out of the entire Pali Canon which is of the size of a large library bookshelf. PDF version here.

I thank you for your answer. I contains much useful information and links. I only disagree with the first paragraph. Because even if Jesus did not made many wonders on earth I would have been a Christian. Because of his message of Love. He is a symbol of compassion, I don’t care if he made wine out of water, etc. His message is wise and inspiring. That’s what I also see in the Buddha.

That’s what I also see in the Buddha. His message is also wise and inspiring. But he approached life differently. His teaching contains much reality, where suffering – which indeed is a part of life – is indeed something that should be broken. Of course there are many difference, but also some similarities. Something in me says I have to find a place in me for both teachings. Being a Buddhist-Christian or something ;) I must be crazy, I know 

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


text:
What are false unchanging entities?
I am having trouble with the concept of "unchanging entities which exist on their own".

Attachment to the false view of self means belief in the presence of unchanging entities which exist on their own...
The Miracle of Mindfulness p. 48

Questions:

What are some examples of "false ideas" of "unchanging entities that exist on their own"?
How do they contribute to the false view of self?

Thank you all for your time.

I inserted the image manually to provide context for the quote (and because I thought that your quote was short because you couldn't easily copy-and-paste), but it's fine by me if you don't want it in the question.

@ChrisW, I wasn't aware you could edit someone's post like that.

Editing is mentioned here in the Help -- it's a feature meant to be used for minor edits, which clarify a post without changing its meaning.

The page you quoted from talks about mentions "the assembly of the five aggregates".
It's standard doctrine that there's no such thing as a permanent (not impermanent), independent (not "dependently originated") self: that's the so-called anatta doctrine, see for example What is the precise meaning of anatta?
The "five aggregates" are things like "form" (perhaps "body"), "feeling", "consciousness", etc. -- which, apparently, people mistake to be themselves -- e.g. "I am this body" (or "I have this body"), "I am (or I have) this consciousness", and so on. Buddhism teaches that these things (these aggregates, skandhas) aren't permanent; that taking them to be "self" is a cause of suffering, and not a good theory (or "right view") to hold or attach to.
Given that Thich Nhat Hanh is Vietnamese/Mahayana, and talking on the same page about Bodhisattvas and peace workers, I think that what he's aiming towards is a view of selflessness (i.e. not selfishness) and interdependence (i.e. not independence). I think that's obvious when you turn the page and read "We have to strip away all the barriers" and so on.
I think that both Thich Nhat Hanh, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, write "popular" books intended to benefit a Western audience.
Anyway, to answer your question, I think the only false view of of "an unchanging entity that exists on its own", that he's talking about here, is the "self" (or "a false view of self"). For example this (my invention, this isn't quoting anyone else) might be one of these false views:

I'm me; and I'll remain 'me' until I die. And I remain me regardless of what other people do or even regardless of what I do.

I think that Thich Nhat Hanh's view is that we (people) are highly interdependent; we exist together, we affect each other; everything I have (a name, a body, an education) comes from other people. In practice there's little or no sense in which anyone is independent, and to imagine we are "sealed off like that not only isn't living, it isn't possible".
I suppose an example of how people aren't "independent" comes from this (non-Buddhist) doctrine, which was once semi-famous as a doctrine for Early Childhood Educators:

CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE by Dorothy Law Nolte
If a child lives with criticism,
  he learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostility,
  he learns to fight.
[etc.]...
If a child lives with encouragement,
  he learns to be confident.
If a child lives with tolerance,
  he learns to be patient.
[etc.]...
If you live with serenity,
  your child will live with peace of mind.
With what is your child living?

Can the 5 aggregates themselves be considered unchanging entities? Or the 4 noble truths? If these ideas were subject to change, then we would not be able to examine the whole body of reality. I know that the quote I posted was specifically referring to the idea of self, but to me the word entity can extend to ideas as well. Thoughts?

I think the aggregates are changing, impermanent, "compound things" -- whereas the 4NT are not "things" but natural "laws" (not impermanent) ... although thoughts about (e.g. perceptions of) those laws are impermanent. For details see this answer, If all things are impermanent, then how can Buddhism make absolute assertions? -- and this topic, Are all of the five aggregates saṅkhāras? Does that make sense?

Hi @ChrisW, how does one assert that a "law" exists outside the realm of the mind? To examine a "law" is to examine the mind, so it seems to me that all laws would be as impermanent as the minds examining them. Even if 100 separate minds made the same assertions about that "law", this would not guarantee its permanence when re-examined by the same 100 minds at a later point in time. This is where my head starts to explode. lol! What am I missing?

@Stanley I don't know how to answer that succinctly; which law you're talking about; nor whether you want an answer based on doctrine or on personal experience -- you might want to post a new question (as a new question).

@Stanley I think this comment says that, according to Mahayana at least, the Dhamma is "conditioned". Maybe that's analogous to the Pali suttas describing the Dhamma as a "raft" (i.e. which you shouldn't cling to after you reach the other shore). But the Pali also praises the Dhamma with epiphets like akalika (which means "non time", or "without time" -- usually translated as "eternal" or "timeless" or "instant" or maybe "continuous" ... without interval).

The canonical example is the Soul or atman of persons that is believed by many religious people to be an unchanging entity that exists on its own.
Another example from many modern scientists are the sub-atomic particles (such as quarks or electrons) that appear to be unchanging entities that exist on their own.
Another example I heard on this site is the number 2. Someone was arguing that the number 2 is an unchanging entity that exists on its own. For that matter, I think they were saying the same of all numbers or at least the positive integers.
Actually, this is the default - if subconscious - belief of nearly everyone for just about everything. Things appear to us as solid and real and existing independently where in fact in reality they are not solid or real nor do they exist independently. My favorite non-Buddhist example of this is the Ship of Theseus. Everything that exists does so in the same way as Theseus' ship without the slightest bit of an unchanging essence behind it. And yet, by default we think that existing things do exist via self-sustaining essences. This is our ignorance.
If you really think about it, we exist just like Theseus' ship. When we are born we are given a name which generally sticks with us all the way through childhood and adulthood and until we die. Over the coarse of our lives every single atom in our bodies is replaced many, many, many times over. Our bodies change until they are almost unrecognizable. Our minds change and our attitudes and beliefs change. There is nothing about us that isn't constantly in a state of flux throughout our lives. Yet, we hold onto this view that we are the same person as we were when we were just a baby. That there is some fundamental aspect about ourselves that is unchanging and exists on its own. Often times when nostalgia hits us we have this naive wish thinking, "If only I could go back and do this or do that again" when the "I" that is now is totally different than the "I" that was then. Still, we think this "I" hasn't changed and so when this "I" occurs to us it gives this definite sense that it is unchanging and permanent and exists separately from all the contingent factors that it utterly depends upon.
This is not the case. This is the false view of the self that we misconceive due to our ignorance.

I'm not sure that this answer will help to explain a Boddhisattva's insight.

@ChrisW How is the question about a Bodhisattva's insight? Rather, the question was looking for examples of what was described in the book. Right? Maybe I misunderstood the question... can you point out how so I can improve it?

The answer isn't wrong, I'm not sure it's practical though. What might make the answer relevant to an atheist (for whom "soul" is meaningless)? Or to "a peace worker in Vietnam"? You don't have to change your answer; maybe I expanded on the (previously narrow) question after you answered it (i.e. I included the slightly larger context around the OP's quote).

I don't think the examples you gave are especially right, either, but the question was asking for examples of false views and so I shouldn't complain about the examples on that score (i.e. about their being false examples because they too lack inherent existence). But, I think that the only examples that matter (i.e. that are relevant) are related to the false views of "self" -- and I think that's the subject/emphasis of the larger quote -- admittedly though maybe you think that false views of other things is important (i.e. relevant) too.

All of the examples are of false views and the first one is directly related to what you call "self" and the other ones are related to false views of things other than self. It isn't clear from the quote that the book is disinterested in the other examples and I do maintain that the other examples are relevant to the false view of what you call "self."

In order to really grok what is wrong about self that makes it false you really have to grok that falseness. The particular ways in which it is false. That falseness is the object of negation. And I maintain you can't really grok what is false about self if you continue to maintain that it is possible that things other than self are not false in the same way that self is. In fact, that very act of maintaining this is indicative that one has not really grokked what is false about the self.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@YesheTenley, I am really going to chew on your answer and the comments. I understand that at a high level independent entities fly in the face of interdependence, which is what we are supposed to focus on in order to be enlightened. Does 'false self' == misunderstanding / wrong understanding? If this is the case, the 'false self' is a metaphor for ignorance.

The false view of self is a wrong conception that we make about how we exist which is based upon our ignorance. If we saw things how they really are we would not be ignorant and we would not make the mistake of believing the false view of self which we think of as an unchanging entity which exists on its own.

Ok, I've edited the answer to hopefully make it more practical and explanatory. Hope it helps!

@YesheTenley, thanks for the update to your answer. It is much clearer now what you mean. I will continue to noodle this.

I marked this post down even though i have not read it because this posted caused wrong understanding in another.


text:
Do Buddhist children from outside of Buddhist countries ever become monks temporarily?
In Buddhist countries, young or teenage boys, and sometime girls, sometimes (or often, depending on the country) become monks temporarily. Do any Buddhist children from other countries (e.g., Western countries) ever do this? Is there anywhere (e.g. a monastery) where this would happen?

In my country (Belgium) and I presume in most Western countries, children are of course allowed to follow programs like these. However, a child joining a monastic order is considered controversial as it collides with laws regarding the protection of minors. Also, consider that many other Western religious orders impose minimum age requirements themselves.
There was a case a few years ago of a 15-year old boy who wanted to join a Tibetan monastery. He was stopped by police on his way to a flight to India. After a court appeal was he permitted to depart a month later.
Though not exactly the same thing, court cases will take into consideration the legal age required to choose/change one's religion without parental consent. The minimum age varies somewhat in European countries.

In Austria and Germany, children can change their religion without parental consent from the age of 14 years;
in Estonia and Slovenia, from the age of 15 years;
in Cyprus, Portugal and Romania, from the age of 16 years.
In Bulgaria, Denmark and Finland, the minimum age for changing religion without parental consent is 18 years.

Well besides the various rules that puthujjanas create and destroy each day, and try to make other puthujjanas follow under various threats, to become a bikkhu is matter of being called a bikkhu by a buddha.
However, the buddha allowed a novice to become a bikkhu, without the buddha being involved directly. Since becoming a bikkhu is a formal event, it is defined by lots of requisite conditions and it is easy to fail to become a bikkhu: as soon as a requisite condition is not met, the novice does not become a bikkhu, even when all the others conditions are met.
So first a little introduction on the event
https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0054.html

Ordination falls into two parts: Going-forth (pabbajjā) and Acceptance
  (upasampadā). The first has traditionally been treated as a
  prerequisite for the second, but nothing in the Canon indicates that
  it need be so. The transaction for Acceptance was first formulated
  when there was no ceremony for Going-forth; and even after the
  Going-forth ceremony was instituted, no directives required that it
  form a prelude for Acceptance. However, the pattern of giving the
  Going-forth prior to Acceptance is ancient—the standard short
  description of a full ordination in Mv.I is, “x obtained the
  Going-forth; he obtained Acceptance”—so that is the pattern discussed
  here.

To become a bikkhu without a buddha being present, as the buddha allows it, requires 3 parties, each party has a lot of constrains:

the first party is of course the novice. The requirements for the novice are numerous. THe most famous requirement is that the novice is at least 20 years old
the second party is the witnessing party: the witnesses are other bikkhus. They must be at least 10 in numbers.
the third party is the party which has the heaviest constrained. This party is the bikkhu who ordains the novice as a bikkhu.
The most famous constrain of the bikkhu who ordains a novice is that this bikkhu must be ''beyond training'', which is the english phrase of ''asekha'', which means the bikkhu who ordains the novice must be an arhant .

THe buddha does not allow a bikkhu who is not beyond training to ordain a novice. Plain and simple.
The buddha claims that A bikkhu who is not beyond training and still carries the ordination makes a mistake and that the novice is not a bikkhu.
SO to be clear, a few instances where a novice does not become a bikkhu:

the novice is 12 yo, the ordaining bikkhu is an arhant , there are 23 bikkhus witnessing => the novice does not become a bikkhu at the end of the ceremony
the novice is 20 yo, the ordaining bikkhu is an arhant , there are 12 bikkhus witnessing, but 6 witnessing bikkhus leave during the ceremony => the novice does not become a bikkhu at the end of the ceremony
the novice is 32 yo, the ordaining bikkhu is not beyond training, there are 49 witnessing bikkhus => the novice does not become a bikkhu at the end of the ceremony
the novice is 20 yo, the ordaining bikkhu is an arhant , there are 12 bikkhus witnessing, but the novice changes 1 word among all the words he has to say during the ceremony => the novice does not become a bikkhu at the end of the ceremony

But, there is a twist. THe puthujjanas love to intellectualize what they hear about the dhamma, they love to create new words, to philosophize, to create new concepts, to create new links between concepts, new categories, new hierarchies of concepts and son.
It turns out that a puthujjana did just that about the ordination of a novice as a bikkhu.
THis puthujjana could not help himself form commenting the vinaya, creating his little views and communicating them to other puthujjana. [puthujjanas love to claim it is a good idea to create opinions, views, systems and to share them]/
Of course, puthujjanas who cannot resist to rewrite the dhamma always fear that their speculations are seen as speculations, as fairy tales, so they strive really hard to build an equivalence between their various speculations and explicit statements in the whatever dhamma texts they read.
So this puhtujjana has created 2 new words :
https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0008.html

the ideal qualification of the bikkhu who ordains a novice
the minimal qualification of the bikkhu who ordains a novice

Then the puthujjana create a hierarchy between his latest two fantasies:

the ideal qualification is better than the minimal qualification

then the puthujjana tries really hard to, what he calls, ''justify'' or ''prove'' his new categories by what he calls ''fact'':

the fact that one of a pupil’s duties is to try to allay any
  dissatisfaction that may arise in his preceptor. If all preceptors
  were arahants, no case of this sort would ever arise and there would
  be no need to mention it.

Of course, puthujjanas create rules and categories in order to see themselves as not belonging to their bad categories, without needing to strive to reach the original good categories of the buddha.
THe categories that this puthujjana created permits to ordain novices with bikkhu who are not arhants and thus fulfill the goal of the puthujjanas to still become bikkhus when there are no buddha nor arhants.
Of course, those puthujajnas love to claim that their fantasies are smart and righteous, full of wisdom and for the good of the people.
There you have it: a new way, created by the puthujjanas themselves, for the puthujjanas, to become bikkhus with the ordaining bikkhus who are puthujjanas.

Householder, interested,
my person "fears" no. First of all it's hard to even trace the Sangha in western countries and in accordance of general wrong view and not seeing that wise praise the going forth, there might be even strong social hindrances for acceptance.
It happens that certain groups organize "children hugging" and use affection to do their livelihood and increase worldly fame and gain. Such is not different if monks would look after the cattle of people for rewards. Some popular western "forest"-branches give currently into such market-strategies.
If having a child desiring after a life with the monks, a monks life, it's of great merits to support such and look after ways. Sure it would be hard to find, not at least because Monks in traditional countries would not easy take on responsibilities for a "prince" and fear wrong reactions of western minded parents. How ever, if there is Upanissaya (strong condition from the past) and if one really desires the going forth, Devas will open doors which are closed on the way.
As for what is the best time to ordain: Now! One should not wait since kusala intentions do not often arise.
Mudita
Possible extended and revised answer can be found here, as well as space for discussion and further questions: [Q&A] Do Buddhist children outside of Buddhist countries ever become monks? incl. related topic [Q&A] Can someone explain about children monks? How to regard young Samaneras?
(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)


text:
How can I smile when existence itself is dukkha?
I see many monks smiling ,which is a good thing, but logically speaking how can they smile when they know life is dukkha. Can you smile when you are watching somebody getting tortured ?
My question is : How can I smile when I know existence itself is dukkha ?

I see many monks smiling, which is a good thing, but logically speaking how can they smile when they know life is dukkha. Can you smile when you are watching somebody getting tortured ?
Think about this, when you see a toddler crying for a chocolate, do you smile or laugh or you get gloomy and sad about the fact that the child is not getting what it wants?
Monks are not smiling because there is 'dukkha', there are smiling even when there is 'dukkha'.
Hotei not just used to smile, he used to laugh.
How can I smile when I know existence itself is dukkha ?
Existence is dukkha is not a decree, it's a diagnosis, and you can smile that it's already been diagnosed, and there is a cure and many people have already gotten cured.

How can I smile when I know existence itself is dukkha ?
Doctrine doesn't say that "existence is dukkha". See also:

Did the Buddha really say that "life is suffering"?
Zen & Dukkha -- Is Everything Suffering?

In 7 Things the Buddha Never Said, Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote (this is not a complete quote, I'm quoting selectively),

The phrase “Life is suffering” is supposed to be a summary of the Buddha’s first noble truth, but the first noble truth simply lists the things in life that constitute suffering: “Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.” (Quotation from Samyutta Nikaya, The Grouped Discourses of the Buddha, 56.11)
Life, you’ll notice, isn’t on the list.
The other noble truths go on to show that there’s more to life than just suffering: There’s the origination of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of suffering as well.
... the Buddha said simply that all fabricated things are impermanent. Anything perceived through the six senses is fabricated, in the sense that it is shaped by conditions, both external and internal.
However, there is something unfabricated that you can experience, and that’s nirvana. (See the Majjhima Nikaya the “Middle-Length Discourses” of the Buddha, 49, and the Samyutta Nikaya, the “Grouped Discourses of the Buddha,”43, for more.)
As the Buddha said, nirvana is the ultimate happiness (Dhammapada 203)—free from change, free from death, free from all limitations. That’s why he taught the path: so that people can find an unconditioned happiness.
... the Buddha actually said that people suffer because they identify with things that change. When the mind is strong enough that it doesn’t need to identify with anything, that’s when there’s no more suffering. On this point, see Samyutta Nikaya 22:1.

Can you smile when you are watching somebody getting tortured ?
I don't know. Is their smile intended as a form of communication in public, does it say something like, "Don't worry about me, I'm alright, you're alright with me", and so on?
If it isn't people "getting tortured", but rather, "torturing themselves", does a smile say something like, "you don't have to do that"?
That's the message which Thich Nhat Hanh took from the Buddha's smile in this story: "He was sitting on the grass, very peaceful, smiling. I was impressed. Around me, people were not like that, so I had the desire to be like him."
If you look at the Brahmaviharas as being:

...  the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti) ... in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact

then perhaps the "right attitude" for you (or from you) towards these smiling monks is mudita -- i.e. sympathetic joy, joy at their accomplishments.

Have you read "Joy at Last to Know There is No Happiness in the World" by Ajahn Brahm?

No but will read. What is the answer ?

The answer is in the title itself. But you should read it first. It's very interesting.

@Santa100. Good to see you back friend.

Nice to hear from you @Lanka

See this answer and question in regards to a different contexts of dukkha:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/17252/13383
Since dukkha is a Pali term, Pali words may have many different contextual meanings in different sentences. Generally speaking, translating dukkha as suffering was questioned by many many scholars, and it's mainly used as a placeholder for a lack of a real word reflecting it in English language.
If one claimed that existence is suffering, one might come to conclusions that annihilation is liberating, but that is not Middle way. As in, breathing, seeing, smelling and simply being would be suffering, but that is not true.
What dukkha means in this context is that everything is unsatisfactory, but it does not mean not to enjoy life or feel joy, it means that these bring temporary,  non-lasting satisfaction.
Note that however, pragmatically, people that are very wealthy are much more satisfied than people that are very poor and starve in grave conditions. Those simply are exposed to more conditions that make them suffer. Therefore, there is varying extent of suffering depending on different circumstances and conditions and always relates to some karmic burden.

This is a good question and also one that vexes many.
Part of the answer here is found in unraveling the confusion between compassion and empathy. I've tried to dispel that confusion with this answer. I won't repeat it here except to note that once you've understood the difference between compassion and empathy I think you'll find at least part of this question will melt away.
If we go around constantly feeling empathy for all the suffering in the world, then it will be very hard for us to smile. Why? Because we'd be experiencing the suffering of others in a very tangible way. Luckily, the Buddhist path does not advise that we do this!
What it does advise is that we perfect our compassion and hold a compassionate attitude at all times in every thing we do. Compassion is nothing more than the wish for others to be free from suffering.
 Compassion provides no hindrance whatsoever to our own happiness or in any way precludes our ability to smile. Just the opposite! The compassionate mind is the very basis for our own happiness and our ability to smile.
In summary:
Walk around with nothing but loving kindness in your heart and a constant compassionate thought for all sentient beings and try not to smile, I dare you :)

They used to frown because of suffering.
But now they smile because they know that suffering is optional (from the third and fourth noble truths) and because they know that Nibbana is the highest bliss or "nibbanam paramam sukham" from Dhammapada 203-204:

Hunger is the worst disease, conditioned things the worst suffering. Knowing this as it really is, the wise realize Nibbana, the
  highest bliss.
Health is the most precious gain and contentment the greatest wealth. A trustworthy person is the best kinsman, Nibbana the highest
  bliss.

Monks also have other reasons to smile, from Dhammapada 197-200:

How very happily we live,
  free from hostility
  among those who are hostile.
  Among hostile people,
  free from hostility we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  free from misery
  among those who are miserable.
  Among miserable people,
  free from misery we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice)
  among those who are busy.
  Among busy (materialistic, avaricious) people,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice) we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  we who have nothing.
  We will feed on rapture
  like the Radiant gods.

"Suffering" isn't someone sticking pins under your fingernails all day, it is simply the fact that life will never be exactly what you want it to be.  You will never be as rich as you want , as as popular as you want, etc.  If they are smiling then it just means they have accepted their life for what it is, which is no great hardship.  Once you have accepted that, you are halfway there.

Good observed, good householder, good observed,
 ...the greedy...
 ...the nasty...
 ...the ignorant...
 ...the "leaving home" one..

Why is there laughter? Why is there joy although (the world) is always burning? Shrouded in darkness why not seek the light? Story to Dhp 146

it's actually total improper, a sign of laking any seriousness and let it be assumed that not even path is reached, faith in the good teaching got firm.
Extrem discouraging are the smilings while receiving the going forth, followed by smiles on alms-round or when receiving gifts...
It destroys ways to foster and nurish faith for many and being the case, the Buddha also declared a conduct rule of which is broken if one smiles to an extend showing teeth. Actually monks aren't really allowed to laugh or smile to an extent which is improper for "one fearing the world" (Bhikkhu).
In regard of making people laugh at "Dhamma"-talk occasions, often joining the joy, good monks usually tell them "into hell leader"-teacher.
Possible good to know that laughing, certain smiling, is a sign of strong lobha, greed.
Laughing, based on what ever lose of others, meaning that it's an expression lifting oneself over others, is very akusala and there are seldom other cases where laughing and smiling wouldn't involve harm of others (individuals, groups...), even if just there prestige. It requires for the most a lot of pride to get even on the bodily surface.
But as it is, smile/sex sells, and less would be so attentive and concerning to discriminate such appearence proper. Smiles attract and are "low" means for common socialization for the sake of sense-pleasure and becoming.
As for: "How can I smile when I know existence itself is dukkha ?"
If "laughing" about your previous foolishness and at the point when path for the ending of Dukkha has been reached.
There is of course such as renouncing-smile, effected by contentment, right release, a smile which does not take, even not take part, serene.

Why is there laughter? Why is there joy although (the world) is always burning? Shrouded in darkness why not seek the light? Story to Dhp 146

An extended answer as well as given place for discussion can be found her: Q&A How can one (even a monk) smile when existence itself is dukkha?
(Note that this isn't given for trade, exchange, stacks and what ever binds in this wheel but for liberation from it)

If it is the case, that Bhk. Thanissaro states: "The phrase "Life is suffering" is supposed to be a summary of the Buddha’s first noble truth, but the first noble truth simply lists the things in life that constitute suffering" (bold/italics mine) this is a misunderstanding of the statement (http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/dn/idx_digha_nikaya.htm#p22 §4, definition of dukkha) saɱkhittena pañc'upādāna-k-khandhā dukkhā "Essentially the Five Fueled Stockpiles are pain."
"The Fueled Stockpiles" is a name for everything in existence. It is the equivalent of The All. The equivalent of "The World". Or: "Life" (bhava). And we also have this stated indirectly in the Paṭicca Samuppada where bhava is one causally associated factor upon which dukkha depends and which is to be eliminated ... not made dukkha-free. We are not trying to change the nature of life or the world, we are trying to escape it.
To say the Buddha does not say that life is pain is misleading and appears to be some sort of attempt at softening of the teaching for the sake of those that do not understand the idea of life hereafter and the problems that poses.
That there is no precisely worded statement that 'life is dukkha' is explained by the fact that life is not entirely, exclusively dukkha. But to conclude from that that the intent is not that everything here is essentially - in its essence painful is to suggest that the Dhamma is intended as a solution to only the pain of this world where the suttas are riddled with the idea that the real concern is rebirth.
It does explain his translation of dukkha as "stress", a very worldly problem.
And, as for the difficulty of smiling when existence is indirectly said to be pain, there is this:
"But if, Sāriputta, they should ask you:
'How is it, friend Sāriputta,
that when you know,
when you see,
blissful feeling is not present with you?'
how would you make answer?"
"If they were to ask me thus, lord:
'How is it, friend Sāriputta,
that when you know,
when you see,
blissful feeling is not present with you?'
I should thus make answer:
'There are these three [modes of] feeling, friend.
Which three?
Pleasant,
painful,
neutral feeling.
Now these three modes are impermanent.
And when it is discerned
that that which is impermanent is painful,
blissful feeling is not present.
Thus asked, thus, lord, should I make answer."
"Well done, Sāriputta,
well done!
Moreover the way to answer just this in brief is:
'Whatever is felt is concerned with pain.'
—SN 2.12.32 - Mrs. Rhys Davids, trans.

One more:
I hear tell:
Once upon a time The Lucky Man, Sāvatthi-town residing.
There then, The Lucky Man addressed the bhikkhus:
"Bhikkhus!"
And the bhikkhus responding:
"Bhadante!"
the Lucky Man said this:
"Here in the discipline of the Aristocrats, beggars,
singing is considered lamentation.
Here in the discipline of the Aristocrats, beggars,
dancing is considered a prelude to madness
Here in the discipline of the Aristocrats, beggars,
flashing ones teeth while laughing is but immaturity.
Wherefore as to singing, beggars, pull down the bridge.
As to dancing, pull down the bridge.
It is enough if something delight the mind,
to smile moderately.
AN 3.103
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/an/idx_03_tikanipata.htm#p103

As my teacher said, to be in good mood, to laugh and have fun, to be joyful while at the same time remaining acutely aware of all the dangers, drawbacks and shortcomings of this existence is the greatest act of strength and courage, and the biggest attainment anyone can master.

Obiviously the teacher isn't the Buddha nor follows him, right?

When one is free from papanca one doesn't go under such labels anymore.


text:
Is it possible to Take Refuge in the Three Jewels, but still learn spiritual wisdom from teachers in other religions?
I am quite fond and connect deeply to the Buddha's teachings. I have been a soft lay buddhist for almost a year now. I am sure that it is one of the best ways to develop as a being, as well as help others, although some deep stuff about shunyatta still confuses and eludes me. However, I am also sure that "other religions" (in quotation marks since it is debatable whether buddhism is a religion) also have a lot of wisdom to teach, help and love to give.
This exerpt from The Triple Refuge, by Sayagi U Chit Tin made me worry:
"Taking refuge will be broken for ordinary people when they die, but this breaking is blameless and does not bring bad results. On the other hand, breaking the taking of the Triple Refuge during one's life is very serious. This is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation or when a person is disrespectful to the Triple Gem."
It seems to me that after taking refuge, if you go to other religions and religious teachers for their teachings on how to develop further down the path, it would be a bad thing (the author does not seem to say why this is a problem nor what happens if you do it).
So, is it possible to take refuge, follow the buddhist path to nibbana and still to other religions for help with the path? What about religions that directly contradict buddhist teachings or precepts?

It will be possible to give you a meaningful answer if you can tell what this other spiritual path is.

I have to warn you that if you take refuge in the Three Jewels, and then go to other religions for guidance, there will be suffering (first noble truth).
Well, even if you stick faithfully to Buddhism, there would still be suffering, but then you will learn how suffering is optional, depending on how you approach it.
Why would there be suffering for followers of many other religions? The reason for this is that they preach and reinforce many of the false views found in the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1) like eternal self, non-existence of self after death, creation from nothing, supreme eternal creator God, finite or infinite world, mistaking jhana states for Nibbana etc.
So, if you insist on intentionally holding onto the false views above, then Buddhism and the Three Jewels cannot help you.

When it is said that one's refuge "is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation[...]" the meaning is that one should not go for ultimate refuge in anything but the three Jewels. It is Lama Je Tsongkhapa's interpretation.
When one is sick, (1) fearing the suffering of illness and (2) trusting that the doctor can protect him from it, he goes to the doctor to seek protection. This is called taking refuge. But this is not ultimate refuge.
A Buddhist can uphold this type of refuge. Other common instances are: relying on a deity or a spirit in the hope of being prosperous... or having children... or having good crops, etc. These are worldly concerns.
Now, the Buddha is the one true doctor that can protect you from the suffering of cyclic existence, as well as from the suffering caused by self-cherishing (that impedes you from being able to benefit other sentient beings). There are these two "definite goodness": (1) individual liberation, and (2) complete buddhahood.
One cannot go for refuge to anything but the three Jewels to obtain either of these two definite goodnesses, thereby becoming a holly being, a saint, a foe destroyer an arhat. The actual foes (afflictive obscurations and knowledge obscurations) cannot be destroyed but by actualizing the three Jewels in one's continuum.
There is no issue for you to attend Muslims or Christian, etc. teachings and drawing conventional wisdom from them at all. The most important is that it helps you destroy the foes, the enemies of ignorance and self-cherishing. A Theravada might say: as long as it helps you destroy the foe of craving, but you get the gist.
This morning still, I sent a passage from Rudolph Otto (a Lutheran theologian) to a brother of mine, also a Buddhist monk. The quote went:

For one of the chiefest and most general features of mysticism is just
  this self-depreciation (so plainly parallel to the case of Abraham),
  the estimation of the self, of the personal "I," as something not
  perfectly or essentially real, or even as mere nullity, a
  self-depreciation which comes to demand its own fulfillment in
  practice in rejecting the delusion of selfhood, and so makes for the
  annihilation of the self. And on the other hand mysticism leads to a
  valuation of the transcendent object of its reference as that which
  through plenitude of being stands supreme and absolute, so that the
  finite self contrasted with it becomes conscious even in its nullity
  that "I am naught, Thou art all."

And that can definitely speak to Buddhist yogis.

What an amazing quote. How about matters of doctrine or about contradictions between what another spiritual path says and what the Buddha has said? If I take refuge in the Three Jewels and then go to a Christian Church and learn that only Jehovah should be worshiped and that Jehovah is a jealous God? Or associating with someone who disparages the Buddha and says he is a demon sent to deceive us from worshiping Jehovah?

Thank you very much for this answer. It has illuminated many things. I am however sorry to abuse your generosity, but I am confused now abou:t what is ultimate refuge?

@YesheTenley the tenet that "only Jehovah should be worshiped" is exclusive because of the word "only". But one could very well benefit from the teaching of such church without adopting all of its tenets. We all pick and chose depending on our karma. But one has to pick and chose, because the soteriological goals of Buddhism and Christianity, for instance, are not the same. Especially, a Buddhist practitioner [in terms of practice ] must have any of the three motivations. As to associating with[...] one has to know how close he can get to this or that fire without getting burned.

@HenriqueTyrrell Geshe Jampa Gyatso says "That which has reached the path-of-no-more-learning is an ultimate object of refuge while that which has not reached the end of the path is a conventional object of refuge." To paraphrase Je Tsongkhapa, an ultimate refuge is that which is able to establish you in any of the three enlightenments. It is the one true doctor. It is that which protects you from either [the fear] of cyclic existence or from the extremes of individual liberation & samsara.

Is it possible to Take Refuge in the Three Jewels, but still learn spiritual wisdom from teachers in other religions?

It depends on the content of those other religious teachings. If they contain aspects such as a Creator God, a permanent Soul etc. it would pose quite a problem for the advancement on the Buddhist path.
The Buddha's teaching is first and foremost a practical teaching emphasizing an experiental understanding of reality, rather than an intellectual understanding. There is not a belief-system in place as seen in e.g. Islam and Christianity.
The Buddha's teaching is described as "Ehi-passiko", directly translated it means something close to "come-and-see" or "one-is-invited-to-come-and-see-for-oneself". The teaching is "come-and-seeable". It means that the practitioner of the Buddhist path becomes his or her own refuge, not relying on blind belief but instead through correct and consistent practice develops a correct understanding (Right View: Sammā-diṭṭhi) of reality.
The Buddha's teaching is designed to expel Ignorance (Avidyā), which is one of the basic causes for beings to take rebirth. The insight-portion of the teaching is designed to make the meditator gain access to the Signs of Existence, i.e. the impermanent, unsatisfactory and uncontrollable nature of conditioned reality. Impermanence is masked by the illusion of continuity, which again masks the unsatisfactory nature of phenomena. Ignorance is what keeps this illusion going.
Vipassana meditation expels ignorance which in turn allows practitioners see reality clearly. When one truly sees that nothing in the world is worth clinging to and that conditioned phenomena is unreliable, oppresive and cause constant suffering due to their incessant arising and ceasing, the mind simply gives it up and becomes free.
If one is mixing the Buddhist teaching with other religious teachings that are based on blind belief or concepts such as a Creator God, a Soul etc., one is adding more ignorance to ones one mind stream, meaning one creates further distance between oneself and liberation. Following other religious teachings might be possible but it might also make ones own progress towards Nibbana slower or even impossible.

The short answer is Yes, you can still take refuge to the three Jewels and follow a spiritual path that does not Contradict nor Deny the three Jewels.
If I were you, I would only be concerned if the other religions will prolong/delay your path in reaching enlightenment, even if it is possible.