text:
Dealing with Lust
I am wondering about the nature of lust and its remedies. I know Buddhism posits that lust depends on the sense organs, and contact with an object. Thus, I've read it promotes decreasing this contact and guarding the senses.
Yet, I find myself experience lust seemingly detached from contact, or rather, lust with a subjective emphasis. It is my imaginations that flare and cause me to experience lust, but only at certain key moments. I specify this because most of the time, I do not experience lustful thought processes. Only at certain moments does it almost seem like my guard is down, and my mindfulness absent, and lust resurfaces in an almost obsessive way.
I have not managed to find a way to decrease the periodic surfacing of lust I describe. It seems more inherent to myself as a subject than caused by objects intrinsically.
In terms of remedies:
(1) I wonder whether natural masturbation without erotic material is bad. Could it potentially reduce these types of surfacing lust? Or, rather, would abstinence decrease lust more effectively. I feel in this second case the libidinal drive might simply increase, whereas in the first libido is kept even. But perhaps I am wrong.
(2) Is there any Buddhist information on interior causes for such lust?
Thanks for any answer.

The YouTube video "Ask A Monk: Pornography and Masturbation (and Addiction in General)" by Ven. Yuttadhammo may be helpful to you.
He discusses "interior causes for such lust" from the perspective of Dependent Origination in the video.
He says that we can break the cause of the arising of lust through wisdom.
One way suggested by him is to mentally take apart and analyze the parts of the body (the so-called contemplation on unattractiveness or asubha). You can find some info in this question and this question. But also see this answer - this type of contemplation should be replaced with the mindfulness of breathing if it triggers negative thoughts of suicide.
The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".
In any case, this summary that I wrote, does not cover all the details discussed in the video. So, it's better to watch it completely.

I found this video very useful. The Ven. Yuttadhammo does an excellent job of explaining this touchy subject (no pun intended) in terms that even this layman (me) can understand. I had left my view of that at the doorstep of merely accepting bodily urges as an event that happens and by just addressing it directly and not giving it too much thought. Like taking a breath. But Ven. Yuttadhammo  convinces me of another train of thought. Good reference and answer. Thank you so much!!

I know Buddhism posits that lust depends on the sense organs, and contact with an object. Thus, I've read it promotes decreasing this
  contact and guarding the senses.

No. Lust depends on ignorance. Guarding the senses does not mean decreasing sense contact. It means having wisdom at sense contact.

It is my imaginations that flare and cause me to experience lust, but only at certain key moments.

This is due to ignorance or a lack of wisdom.

I wonder whether natural masturbation without erotic material is bad. Could it potentially reduce these types of surfacing lust?

Masturbation will not reduce lust.

Or, rather, would abstinence decrease lust more effectively.

Wisdom & metta decrease lust.

I feel in this second case the libidinal drive might simply increase, whereas in the first libido is kept even. But perhaps I am
  wrong.

Ideas about 'libido' are materialism. Lust arises from wrong view. For example, if right view knows the most beautiful sex object in the world has a sexual transmitted disease, lust would not arise in relation to that object. This shows how view determines lust.

Is there any Buddhist information on interior causes for such lust?

Buddhism explains lust arises from the sign or theme (nimitta) of 'beautiful' or sexual objectification. The mind views or thinks about a sense object only in terms of sensual pleasure. The mind does not view or think about the drawbacks, unsatisfactory &/or suffering aspect of the object. The mind does not have metta-karuna (loving-kindness & compassion) towards the object; therefore lust arises.
The Bharadvaja Sutta offers three methods for reducing or ending lust:

Loving-kindness (viewing women as mothers, sisters & daughters).
Meditation upon the non-beautiful
Guarding the senses, by not grasping at any themes, such as the theme of 'beautiful'.

I doubt the last two methods can work well without mastering the 1st method.

I dont disagree with your answer, it just saddens me. I am saddened that the method to deal with beautification is to remove the appreciation for aesthetic beauty. This is the part of discipline where I draw the line. I do see beauty in the human form or in a rainbow or in a soft kitten. I sense it. I may even desire it. And I feel that taking joy in the limited senses we have in this form is a positive. I know this is a view I must get past. It is a burdensome dilemma (which is part of the suffering it creates).

@KauvaAatma - I don't think this has to be seen in such a negative light. The trick is to appreciate beauty but not as an object of lust or desire (or aversion).. The Buddha, when tempted, is said to have turned Mara's dancing girls into cherry-blossom. Iow, he retained the beauty but abstracted the lust. . .

@PeterJ Isn't it important to appreciate a person's virtue (good behaviour, good intentions, skill)? Don't you find that "grasping the signs" of how handsome or otherwise a person's form is, is a distraction from discerning anything about their character, motive, and so on? This says specifically that "external appearance" is an "unreliable" way to "evaluate" a person.

@ChrisW - All fine, I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I wasn't suggesting grasping at anything. Good point about physical features distorting our discrimination and discernment. .

I know Buddhism posits that lust depends on the sense organs, and contact with an object ...  I find myself experience lust seemingly detached from contact ... It is my imaginations that flare
Buddhism posits six sense organs: like the eye contacts visual objects, the mind contacts mental objects (ideas).
So I think that's consistent with your saying it's triggered by "imaginations".
Or, rather, would abstinence decrease lust more effectively.
My experience is that any habit (or intentional action) is difficult to stop once started. If I have a cigarette, I want another later. If I have an alcoholic drink one evening, then I want another the next evening (because a thought occurs, like, "Suppose I have another drink, now, like I did previously?").
Conversely the longer it has been since stopping, the easier it is to stay stopped -- even if the thought reoccurs, when you have learned to stop, you can be aware of the thought if it arises but let it go again without its entraining more intentional action (i.e. without deciding to act on it, with deciding not to act).
I feel in this second case the libidinal drive might simply increase
I think that Buddhism teaches that (at least for monks and nuns) sexual intercourse (even when alone) is to be cut off completely ... which I think says something about (everyone's) human physiology.
It's not like hunger: you need "food" and if you don't get it, then... But "lust" isn't in that same category.

Maybe there are some components of sexual intercourse that can be wholesome: social intercourse, physical exercise.
I hesitate to say so because a monk may teach that social intercourse and physical exercise are for the birds, but, whatever.
My point was that if you feel you need something, maybe what you need is something wholesome (like, I don't know, social intercourse; or physical exercise). So if you do view lust (or libido) as a need, maybe identify/disentangle wholesome (or less harmful) components/activities to practice.

Actually if your conditioning is tough then its better off that you make some kind of clearance before you silently meditate because your mind is not silent it has a lot of noise.I recommend dynamic meditation prioritized by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the 70's where you move your whole body releasing all the bent up tension while staying as a watcher in the process.
here are links:
https://www.oshorajneesh.com/osho-meditation-music-download.htm
http://www.oshodynamic.com/five-stages.html

How is Osho seen in the Buddhist community?


text:
In tendai, can the 1st and 5th teachings be called "potentiality" and "possible"?
In tendai, can the 1st (huayen) and 5th (lotus) teachings be called "potentiality" and "possible", respectively?
I know the word "potential" from Heidegger's Being and Time, who has appeared in comparative studies. The most eye catching phrase, being "my ownmost potentiality for being", that amounting to death therein. By possibility, I just mean the not "necessary" or "actual", in the standard analytic philosophical terms.
I won't go into why I might suppose that could be a viable interpretation.

Are you referring to the classification into the five periods of the life of the Buddha by Hsuan Hua?

@Codosaur no i don't mean to limit it to Hsuan Hua, a name i do not recognise

What I meant was, by which classification are you referring to the 1st and 5th? There are multiple classifications of teachings in the Tendai school and I'm not sure which one you are referring to.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mutually Exclusive Approaches
I had begun writing a question, but it was so long I needed to re-frame it simply in fewer words. The basic theme of my question was: aren't some Buddhist techniques mutually exclusive?
The simplest idea which comes to mind is traditional techniques of avoiding and analyzing detrimental states (e.g. Vitakka-Santhana Sutta) versus the modern notion of mindfulness (e.g. Jon Kabat-Zinn). I feel it is difficult to combine these two aspects.
Similarly, I thought the way of emptiness as found, for example, in the Dalai Lama's book The Middle Way alters completely all reference for reality. With Nagarjuna's philosophy, nothing exists intrinsically in itself, but as dependently originated. Dhammas as ultimate and essential realities are invalidated.
I cannot help but feel all these aspects of Buddhism are somewhat exclusive, to a degree. I could conceive their unity through a kind of symbiotic compromise, but I have trouble understanding at a mundane level (i.e. conventional reality) how these can interact.
Thank you for your time.

There are many techniques that were taught by the Buddha and also later, other techniques were developed by Buddhist teachers over history, that are based on the Buddha's teachings. You are right that some of these techniques may be mutually exclusive to each other.
However, we must understand that each technique is used for a particular purpose, for a particular situation, to cater for a particular need.
It is just like how a master chef uses various techniques to craft the best results based on the needs. Sometimes you need to boil, sometimes you need to bake, sometimes you need to fry and sometimes you need to sautee. These techniques are mutually exclusive but used at different times to achieve different results.
I'm not sure, but I guess Kabat-Zinn's mindfulness is similar to insight meditation (vipassana). You can find guidance on the basics of insight meditation in the booklet entitled "How To Meditate" by Ven. Yuttadhammo. This technique is used to gain insight into the workings of dependent origination. Also read "The Way of Mindfulness" by Ven. Soma Thera, which is an essay that discusses the Satipatthana Sutta.
But you can't progress in insight meditation, if you are strongly assailed by the five hindrances. To solve this, one technique is in the Vitakka-Santhana Sutta which teaches the forceful removal of unskillful thoughts. Forceful removal of thoughts is not part of insight meditation, but if you are too disturbed by unskillful thoughts, then you need to forcefully remove it.
To eradicate the hindrance of ill-will, you can use Loving Kindness (metta) as the technique for eradication. Intentionally generating thoughts of loving kindness is also not part of insight meditation.
For overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it. Intentionally contemplating on unattractiveness, is also not part of insight meditation.
Also, samatha meditation (see the article entitled "Entering the Jhanas" by Leigh Brasington) is yet another technique used to calm the mind, and create focus and concentration. This is yet another technique that could help insight meditation. But it can be developed on its own too.
If you are continuously disturbed in every way in meditation and cannot progress further, then the technique to solve this, is the development of virtue (sila) outside of meditation - see this answer for details.
So, although different approaches appear to be mutually exclusive, they are actually complementary. The Buddha taught the practitioner to be multi-skilled. That's why there's the Noble Eightfold Path, rather than a Noble One Single Technique to End Suffering. No one technique is sufficient to achieve the results.

I'm not sure what did you consider as being mutually exclusive concerning emptiness. Philosophically, emptiness is defined differently in the Theravada and Mahayana traditions. You can find out about it in this question. Emptiness in the Theravada tradition is about the five aggregates and in fact all phenomena, being empty or devoid of a self. This is relevant for insight meditation, in the contemplation of mental objects (dhammas) i.e. for the fourth foundation of mindfulness.

Yes, organised Buddhism is exclusive, confusing and in conflict with itself, for a wide range of complex reasons to long to list here. Best to steer clear of organised Buddhism and read the Sutta Pitaka for yourself.
Kabat-Zinn's mindfulness practice is derived from the Visudhimagga, a commentarial paper written around 900 years after the Buddha's death. More specifically Vipassana meditation, which was not taught by the Buddha. The western appropriation of mindfulness as a psychological healing tool derived from a paper not containing the words of the Buddha naturally does not reflect the reality of the Buddha's teachings in the original discourses. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of mindfulness in the west too entrenched to uproot.
Emptiness is also a hugely conflated concept, which was originally used by the Buddha to simply talk about a state of Samadhi found within deep states of meditation, via the practice of jhana. One will not easily directly experience emptiness outside of deep meditation.
What you may be experiencing is the result of combining too many opinions which come from  varying groups who in some way all reject fundamental principles in the Sutta Pitaka.

This isn't exactly a Buddhist answer, but the phenomenon you describe reminds me of the science I was taught in school; for example:

Is an electron a particle, or a wave?
Is mechanics newtonian, or relativistic?
Are air resistance and friction negligible, or not?
How should we describe the world: using physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, or...?

They're each useful.
And it's not that "they interact", it's that we have to pick the appropriate model -- and the "appropriate model" changes depending on what we're trying to describe, or what problem we're trying to solve.
Consider just mathematics: is maths algebra, or is it trigonometry ... which is it? When do you use which? How can they interact?

A couple of Buddhist examples:

See the quote from Ajahn Chah, quoted at the top of this answer
There's the (famous) parable of the blind men and the elephant, where the dhamma is compared to an elephant

There's also the simile of "the raft". The purpose or emphasis of Buddhism might be slightly different depending on who's teaching it, but here for example:

This is a discourse about clinging to views (ditthi). Its central message is conveyed in two similes, among the most famous in the Canon: the simile of the water-snake and the simile of the raft. Taken together, these similes focus on the skill needed to grasp right view properly as a means of leading to the cessation of suffering, rather than an object of clinging, and then letting it go when it has done its job.

I'm not sure it's right to call them "mutually exclusive" either, though maybe you can't consciously practice all of them simultaneously.
Imagine there was some old inscription, faded by centuries, on rock or wood, difficult to read. To try to read it you might  illuminate it from one side, to try to see the shadow of the letters ... then illuminate it from the other side, to see a different shadow of the same letters.

Since Eggman wrote on a "common sense level" (which is wise and timely) it's good to read The Essence of the Dhamma and it's good not to follow people missinterprate and not capable to understand.
The abounding of the raft is something most really do not need to think about yet, believing that there might be a philosophical short-cut without doing the work first.
Mind it!

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


text:
Is my Meditation Practice Too Busy?
I've been meditating fairly regularly for the past 5+ years, but have really only begun to follow Buddhism the past year or so. As such, my meditation practice has changed. I admit, I am not presently working with a teacher or monastery, though it is on  my radar.
I meditate every morning, from 20-30 minutes, and then usually a short one at night, around 5 minutes. Yes, I'd like to meditate more often, I'm working towards that.
I wonder if my meditation is too 'busy'. I begin with focus on the breath, generally counting up to 10 a few times. I also throw in the "I have arrived, I am home..." mantra during this period. I then move to a short 'prayer' routine that I developed in recovery from drugs/alcohol - this is only about a minute or so. I typically then spend a bit focused on non-self, passing through the body and saying 'I am not any singular part - I am not the senses, the flesh, bones, blood, organs, etc'. This often leads to contemplation of the 4 Noble Truths, with which I sit for a bit, maybe 5 minutes or so. I wrap up usually with metta, going through the various people (myself, an honored person, loved, disliked, etc.).
Writing this I'm like "wow", I do all that in 20-30 minutes??? So that's why I pose the question here - might it be wiser to just stick with one of those? Abandon all? Center on just a few of them?
I feel like it works for me, I do enjoy it, but I do wonder if I'm sorta 'cheating' in the sense that I'm doing too much, keeping the mind too occupied in order to pass the time 'quicker'.

The reflections you are doing are both excellent & necessary however they are the development of right view and not the development of right concentration. The development of concentration is developing a quiet & still mind. In developing a quiet & still mind, the right view reflections you are doing are used only when a hindrance arises or when grasping/attachment to meditation arises.

Yes, this does sound quite busy. Try keeping your attention sustained on the breath, using the breath to relax the entire body in a way that feels good. Be mindful of pleasant feeling filling your experience from attention on the breath and relaxation. When the body is full of pleasant feeling and you are comfortable and satisfied within your meditation, being mindful of bliss and joy, you have reached the first jhana. Give yourself 30 mins to reach this stage. Try not counting and bringing in other concepts. Just stay with the breath, cultivating pleasant feeling. This method is in line with the Buddha's original instructions. This is right Samadhi. Subscription to teacher or monastery is not required.

Encompassing all that you do within 20 minutes is both honorable and perhaps not the best practice all rolled into one. Simply focus on the breath to begin. It will be your guide. Thanissaro Bhikkhu has excellent videos on YouTube that make the practice seem easy. Metta/Loving Kindness meditation is a great way to end the day if you would like to continue the practice.

I've been listening to some guided meditation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu  on Youtube, as per your suggestions, and they've been great. But I find myself relying on his instruction, is that still concentration? It doesn't seem to be concentration on ONE object, rather two: his instruction and the resulting action, e.g., focus on breath, then focus on relaxing the different quadrants of the body. For some reason I have this idea that 'pure' meditation doesn't rely on guidance, not sure if that is a skillful thought.

Great that you have used the videos and personally suggest the 40 minute w/ ending which I have used and find extremely beneficial.

Please understand that most everyone has relied on a teacher at some time for instruction. Once the skill is learned, it is taken away and used on ones own. Same here. As for the breath, it is the main focus, even when going through a body scan. You are breathing into the body - that is the main focus. Eventually the scan falls away, but then again, down the line so does the breath. Then we are left with the One.

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


text:
Does Samadhi realm of desire require single-pointed focus?
I read there are 3 realms of samadhi: realm of desire, realm of form and realm of no form.
If I read correctly, Samadhi is one-pointed focus. But if I achieve samadhi by, let's say, the desire to win a sports game: I'm locked in, well doesn't my mind have to be focused on many aspects? There isn't a single-pointed focus, of having only one object like a kasina, in mind. Same for form.  Can one still achieve one-pointed focus with multiple things in mind, if he is only focused on them and nothing else? Can I still reach happiness and the other jhana factors?

I suppose you're referring to "three worlds", three cosmic realms, see for example here: Desire realm.

There are no 3 realms of Samadhi(Jhana). The jhanas have nothing to do with sensual desire. First four jhanas lead to birth in fine material realms. The last four lead to immaterial realms. One-pointeness by definition is pointed at one object. At that moment all sensual desires are subdued.
But it is possible to get in and out of the Jhanic  states quickly if you master them. ex: It is said that the Buddha enters the Jhanas between each word he speaks while maintaining a normal speaking speed.

Samma Samadhi (right concentration) is a specific word in Buddhism to describe form realm and no form realm in conjunction with noble eight fold path. (please note Samma or Right)
If you take only the word concentration it could well be applicable to the realm of desire as well. We all (every mind moment) have one-pointedness when we concentration on any object. You can concentrate only one object at a time.


text:
What is one's relationship with the world upon attaining Nirvana (and how do we work to get there)
There seems to be this ongoing debate both within the Buddhist Tradition itself and with the world-at-large as to how a practitioner should relate to the world. The Buddha himself forsook his family and all worldly-pleasures in pursuit of a spiritual life prior to his enlightenment. Such practice and attitudes has largely been preserved within the Theravada tradition. The Mahayana, in particular its Chinese strain, stressed on the ability to heal the world within and without, to relate to all sentient-beings in a loving way through the practice of Metta and Karuna - the Bodhisattva way of life. Compared to the Christian Gospel of love, the Buddhist doctrine seems so much more rational and pragmatic - Metta is just a means to an end, not an end in itself; it is practiced just to help the yogi remove obstacles from his or her road to nirvana. It is not uncommon to find Buddhists who are aloof to worldly affairs and loving relationships - the yogi who chose to lead a life of solitude and inner-peace, in place of worldly pursuits; the vagabond who chose to wander in this world so that he may find his true home in another. My question would be: How should an aspiring Buddhist aim to lead his life and relate to the world?

Welcome to the site. An "ongoing debate" is maybe not a good topic here -- this is meant to be a Q+A site, with answerable questions which could have a good or correct answer; not a discussion site or forum.

From my own experience, at certain point in one's practice, one's ties with the regular world reduce so much that one no longer gets any energy from participating in mundane affairs ("There is nothing further for the sake of this world").
At this point one has only two choices: either go 100% hardcore ascetic ("Arhat") or engage with society in the teaching/helping capacity ("Bodhisattva") - either openly or secretly. One can't really be "normal" anymore, pursuing success and entertainment, since one's value system no longer goes up to worldly goals. So if one were to engage with the world lukewarmely on samsaric terms - then one would either die miserable death, or regress badly -- hence only two reasonable choices. I suppose this is why it is often said that once you go far enough there is no turning back.
As to which option is preferable, I think it's totally up to personal inclinations. Some people are very self-sufficient and very comfortable being the end in themselves. For them the peace of minimalism is way more agreeable than the high drama of Bodhisattva's path. Other people need to get energy from the outside, so they chose to give something, to get something in return.

What a beautiful and descriptive answer! Wordly praise but I think I'm the kind that likes to receive praise so far but praise and blame should be seen as the same, same value. To extremes arbitrarily appearing in experience as impermanent events. Now I expect praise for my answer haha, only gonna reap suffering from that expectation and wanting and so I decide to have no expectation of reaction to my comment and live free. But still it alternates, anyhow I'm gonna check for reactions and is fine:) maybe if I hadn't sent it but when in doubt in my case is better to act on my own intentions.

I would like to add to your first comment a bit. When I first began the search for my path the issue of following the middle was a crucial discovery for me. I viewed each situation as a sine wave that would be down at some point but inevitably come up the same amount - a balance. When I realized that all things are on such a wave and it is just the limitation of our mortality that prevents us from seeing the whole "cycle" then a calmness came over me. It was my first real insight as a Buddhist and one of the most important.

The one who wants to become a Buddhist should take refuge in the Triple-gem. It means taking spiritual guidance only from the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha.
If you are a lay person, you are expected to put forth and honest effort to keep to the Five Precepts on a daily basis. Eight precepts are recommended on full moon days. Lay Buddhists are allowed to work for worldly ambitions such as running a business, getting married, having a family etc. as long as they do not do it in unwholesome ways.
If one wishes to dedicate one's whole life to Buddhism, one may renounce the lay life and get ordained as a monk or nun.

How should an aspiring Buddhist aim to lead his life and relate to the world?

Imo Buddhism do not tell you how you 'should' live your life. Other people tell you how you should live your life. Buddhism will tell you what sort of lifestyles is wholesome and what is not. But whether to follow it or not is up to you. Because at the end of the day what you do is all on you.
Having said that, Buddhas analogy of a lotus flower, which is born from muddy water, fed from muddy water, but risen up from muddy water toward the sun and living untouched by muddy water describe the mindset of an enlightened Buddhist.
You are born out of the world, you are fed (depend on for your survival) by the world, but you rise from it and live untouched by the all the unsatisfactory things going on in the world.
I would expect that further you travel on your path less you will be attached to the world.

The Middle Way is not an extreme in itself. Mahayana swings towards concentrating on benefiting other first (more anatta-y), Theravada swings towards concentrating on benefiting oneself first (more anicca-y). In the end, whilst 'defining himself' as a meditator at heart, the Buddha never declined to answer an honest question on the Dhamma. It is important to live in line with all aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path.
The world as a conditioned, dependently arisen experience, is seen as a burden. In stating an accurate and verifiable description of experience within anicca, anatta and dukkha, curiosity for the world becomes less of a driving force, so engage with the world out of compassion.

"What is one's relationship with the world upon attaining Nirvana"
The is no more relation to the world (in all its meaning), upon attaining the Unbound (Nibbana).
If asking "is there any relation left", one could say "formal to the Noble Ones", if spoken of kindship.
Yet, if asking "what is the benefit, the use, for others of that?" Being beyond of trade and exchange, Such is an unexcelled field of merits. Directed to the Unbound as well.
"How should an aspiring Buddhist aim to lead his life and relate to the world?"
In using food/relation/sustenance/entertainment just to abandon food/relation/sustenance/entertainment.
"How do we work to get there?"
By working on the conditions for the capacity to practicing this Noble Eightfold Path
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by trade and exchange]

The [Tibetan] Mahayana tradition teaches that nirvana is a direct understanding of emptiness. This direct understanding of emptiness is gained by a combination of study and meditation on emptiness. This direct understanding of emptiness is also a direct understanding of reality and liberation from samsara so it becomes obvious what is important, and what is not. For example, generosity, patience, compassion, kindness, etc. I have been taught that the Bodhisattva way of life is required for full enlightenment. The ultimate goal is to become fully enlightened in order to be of the most help to all sentient beings.


text:
Sources on the lifespan of Dhamma
Everyone is saying that the Dhamma will last 5000 years after the parinibbana. That it will last in Sri Lanka. So far I haven't found any authentic sources even in Tripitaka saying that
Are there any sources if so please do provide. If not, is this some fact created by people in Sri Lanka back in the days ?

Please see the essay "The Coming Buddha, Ariya Metteyya" by Ven. Sayagyi U Chit Tin:

During the period from the time of Buddha Gotama to the minimum life
  span, the Buddha's Dispensation (Buddha-sasana) will disappear. When
  the Buddha agreed to create the Bhikkhuni Sangha, he told Ven. Ananda
  that the Sasana would last only half as long because of this. Instead
  of lasting one thousand years, it would last five hundred years. The
  commentary on the Abhidhamma text, Dhammasangani, says that when the
  First Buddhist Council convened by Ven. Maha-Kassapa rehearsed the
  Pali Canon, this made it possible for the Sasana to endure for five
  thousand years.[48]
The commentaries on the Vinaya Pitaka[49] and the Anguttara-nikaya[50]
  say that the eight important rules which the Buddha gave to the
  Bhikkhuni Sangha will make his Teachings last for five thousand years
  rather than five hundred. There will be one thousand years for Arahats
  who attain analytical insight, one thousand years for Arahats without
  those attainments, one thousand years for Non-returners, one thousand
  years for Once-returners, and one thousand years for Stream-winners.
  After these five thousand years of penetration of the true Doctrine
  (pativedha-sadhamma),[51] the accomplishment in the texts
  (pariyatti-dhamma) will remain. After the accomplishment in the texts
  disappears, the signs (linga) will continue for a long time.
In the commentary to the Theragatha[52] the Sasana is said to consist
  of five periods: (1) the age of deliverance (vimutti-yuga), (2) the
  age of concentration (samadhi-yuga), (3) the age of morality
  (sila-yuga), (4) the age of learning [the texts] (suta-yuga), and (5)
  the age of generosity (dana-yuga). Ven. Dhammapala says, concerning the
  disappearance of learning, "In a region where there is no purity of
  morality, accomplishment (in the texts) remains through taking up
  great learning, through the desire to acquire, etc. But when
  accomplishment in the summary [i.e., the Patimokkha] is completely
  ended, it disappears. From that time on, only the mere sign (linga)
  remains. Then, having accumulated riches in various ways, they give
  away gifts (dana); this, truly, is the last right practice. Then, [the
  period starting] after the disappearance of learning is the last time
  (pacchima-kala). Others say that it is from the time of the
  disappearance of morality." According to the tradition in Burma, the
  Sasana will last five thousand years. The five periods will occur
  twice. The first half of the Sasana has just passed, with each of the
  five periods lasting five hundred years. We are now in the second
  half, when these periods will be repeated, each lasting for another
  five hundred years.

Footnotes:

[48] As 27, see Expos. 35.
  [49] Sp 1291.
  [50] Mp IV 136f.

List of Abbreviations:
As =   Atthasalini (trans., Expos.).
       BN 630/862 = Bibliotheque nationale, Pali mss
       630 and 862, commentary on Anag. We thank Mme J.
       Filliozat for making available a copy of her
       transcription of this text.
Expos.=The Expositor (As).
Sp =   Samantapasadika (commentary on the Vinaya Pitaka).
Mp =   Manorathapurani (commentary on the Anguttara Nikaya).

This topic is the reason that why saṅgha at 1st saṅgayanā arrange tipitaka content like that. Because they realize to keep lifespan of buddhism. See ruben2020's answer above. For pali source. In my opinion, I think this is sāriputta-aggasāvaka's teaching because he authored saṅgītisutta, and abhidhamma. Also this comment appear in ānanda's, and sāriputta's commentary, too.
Vinaya pitaka, cuḷavagga, bhikkhunikhandhaka:

‘‘sace kho tvaṃ, gotami, ime aṭṭha garudhamme paṭiggaṇheyyāsi, sāva te
  bhavissati upasampadā’’tiฯ
‘‘seyyathāpi, bhante ānanda, itthī vā puriso vā daharo, yuvā,
  maṇḍanakajātiko sīsaṃnahāto uppalamālaṃ vā vassikamālaṃ vā
  atimuttakamālaṃ [adhimattakamālaṃ (syā.)] vā labhitvā ubhohi hatthehi
  paṭiggahetvā uttamaṅge sirasmiṃ patiṭṭhāpeyya; evameva kho ahaṃ,
  bhante, ānanda ime aṭṭha garudhamme paṭiggaṇhāmi yāvajīvaṃ
  anatikkamanīye’’tiฯ
atha kho āyasmā ānando yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami, upasaṅkamitvā
  bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā ekamantaṃ nisīdiฯ ekamantaṃ nisinno kho āyasmā
  ānando bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – ‘‘paṭiggahitā, bhante, mahāpajāpatiyā
  gotamiyā aṭṭha garudhammā, upasampannā bhagavato mātucchā’’tiฯ
‘‘sace, ānanda, nālabhissa mātugāmo tathāgatappavedite dhammavinaye
  agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjaṃ, ciraṭṭhitikaṃ, ānanda, brahmacariyaṃ
  abhavissa, vassasahassaṃ saddhammo tiṭṭheyyaฯ yato ca kho, ānanda,
  mātugāmo tathāgatappavedite dhammavinaye agārasmā anagāriyaṃ
  pabbajito, na dāni, ānanda, brahmacariyaṃ ciraṭṭhitikaṃ bhavissatiฯ
  pañceva dāni, ānanda, vassasatāni saddhammo ṭhassatiฯ
‘‘seyyathāpi, ānanda, yāni kānici kulāni bahutthikāni [bahuitthikāni
  (sī. syā.)] appapurisakāni, tāni suppadhaṃsiyāni honti corehi
  kumbhathenakehi; evameva kho, ānanda, yasmiṃ dhammavinaye labhati
  mātugāmo agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjaṃ, na taṃ brahmacariyaṃ
  ciraṭṭhitikaṃ hotiฯ
‘‘seyyathāpi , ānanda, sampanne sālikkhette setaṭṭikā nāma rogajāti
  nipatati, evaṃ taṃ sālikkhettaṃ na ciraṭṭhitikaṃ hoti; evameva kho,
  ānanda, yasmiṃ dhammavinaye labhati mātugāmo agārasmā anagāriyaṃ
  pabbajjaṃ, na taṃ brahmacariyaṃ ciraṭṭhitikaṃ hotiฯ
‘‘seyyathāpi, ānanda, sampanne ucchukkhette mañjiṭṭhikā [mañjeṭṭhikā
  (sī. syā.)] nāma rogajāti nipatati, evaṃ taṃ ucchukkhettaṃ na
  ciraṭṭhitikaṃ hoti; evameva kho, ānanda, yasmiṃ dhammavinaye labhati
  mātugāmo agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjaṃ, na taṃ brahmacariyaṃ
  ciraṭṭhitikaṃ hotiฯ
‘‘seyyathāpi, ānanda, puriso mahato taḷākassa paṭikacceva āḷiṃ
  bandheyya yāvadeva udakassa anatikkamanāya; evameva kho, ānanda, mayā
  paṭikacceva bhikkhunīnaṃ aṭṭha garudhammā paññattā yāvajīvaṃ
  anatikkamanīyā’’tiฯ

But upāli-etadagga commented, at 1st saṅgāyanā, about above context:

[403] kumbhathenakehīti kumbhe dīpaṃ jāletvā tena ālokena paraghare
  bhaṇḍaṃ vicinitvā thenakacorehiฯ
setaṭṭhikā nāma rogajātīti eko pāṇako nāḷimajjhagataṃ kaṇḍaṃ vijjhati,
  yena viddhattā nikkhantampi sālisīsaṃ khīraṃ gahetuṃ na sakkotiฯ
mañjiṭṭhikā nāma rogajātīti ucchūnaṃ antorattabhāvoฯ mahato taḷākassa
  paṭikacceva āḷinti iminā pana etamatthaṃ dasseti – yathā mahato
  taḷākassa āḷiyā abaddhāyapi kiñci udakaṃ tiṭṭheyya, paṭhamameva
  baddhāya pana yaṃ abaddhapaccayā na tiṭṭheyya, tampi tiṭṭheyya;
  evameva ye ime anuppanne vatthusmiṃ paṭikacceva avītikkamanatthāya
  garudhammā paññattāฯ tesu apaññattesupi mātugāmassa pabbajitattā
  pañceva vassasatāni saddhammo tiṭṭheyyaฯ paṭikacceva paññattattā pana
  aparānipi pañcavassasatāni ṭhassatīti evaṃ paṭhamaṃ vuttaṃ
  vassasahassameva ṭhassatītiฯ vassasahassanti cetaṃ
paṭisambhidāpabhedappattakhīṇāsavavaseneva vuttaṃฯ tato pana uttarimpi
  sukkhavipassakakhīṇāsavavasena vassasahassaṃ, anāgāmivasena
  vassasahassaṃ, sakadāgāmivasena vassasahassaṃ, sotāpannavasena
  vassasahassanti evaṃ pañcavassasahassāni paṭivedhasaddhammo ṭhassatiฯ
  pariyattidhammopi tāniyevaฯ


text:
Vinaya Rule which prohibits on engaging in political activities
There are many monks who are engaging in many political activities such as riots and other types of embarrassing activities in certain countries.
What are the Vinaya Rules on these? It would be great if sources are provided.

Bikkhu can advise laymen about  politics, for the example, see "Conditions of a Nation's Welfare" in mahāparinibbānasutta.
And saṅgha means "group of bikkhu".
Another, all virtual (sīla), keeping-sīla (ethic) and avoiding-sīla (precept), are politic because of "10 purposes of monastic legislation:for the lastingness of the true doctrine", so all advising about physical action & speech are politic, too.
However, bikkhu maybe offense vinaya, if the advising or action is wrong, conflicted with vinaya, such as ordering to kill or ordering to stole, etc.

Akila Hettiarachchi, and those with interest,
Taking side and to even maintains ones livelihood by such means is a heavy offense, when it falls under the rule given as Sanghadisesa 13, which, if a monk does not change his ways, could/should lead even to be banned from the community. (See disciplinary transactions).
If on ordering or suggesting, e.g. by means of speech, with words, signs, letter, gesture, he moves people to act on it, saying "it would be good to kill, beat, derive, ban... those/him, her...", he did beak the certain rule for each case, if it is done on that account. In the case of killing, he would have transgressed a downfall rule, Pārājika 3, or if possession if taking on his account, Pārājika 2. In this cases, he does no more count as member of the Sangha, whether he accept, confesses or not and can no more ordain in this live.

A bhikkhu who violates any of these four pārājika rules is automatically no longer a bhikkhu. There is no need for him to go through a formal ceremony of disrobing, for the act of violating the rule is an act of disrobing in and of itself. As each of the rules states, he is no longer in affiliation, which the word-analysis defines as no longer having a single transaction (i.e., he can no longer participate in any Community meetings), no longer having a single recitation (i.e., he can no longer participate in the uposatha (see BMC2, Chapter 15)), no longer having a training in common with the bhikkhus.
Even if a bhikkhu who has violated any of these rules continues to pretend to be a bhikkhu, he does not really count as one; as soon as the facts are known he must be expelled from the Saṅgha. He can never again properly ordain as a bhikkhu in this life. If he tries to ordain in a Community that does not know of his offense, his ordination is invalid, and he must be expelled as soon as the truth is found out.

A serious matter, than many activists, not only from the independent kammic effect underestimate. (Think on issues like abortion, euthanasia... as political matters for example).
If arguing for such "popular" things, to make certain groups a favor, to gain, keep, have them as possible supporter, even if a lager community does, uses such means to stay established, it's in the frame of Sanghadisesa 13, if not directly urge for actions but give signs or words of taking side. Many, so called "political correctness" packed in single or public teaching cover such. It touches also the matter of speaking for or against political parties, or single politicans, kings, groups, or what ever, might they called broadly good or bad, as a matter of favor.
To count faults of lay people, for example, is also touching another rule which forbids doing such, and if doing for a favour, to maintain one livelihood, again Sg13.
It's difficult today, where most monks are actually normal citizens (householder), are even voting on elections and hold on common rights, to find such not involved.
A Bhikkhu, taking certain side or "trades" in ways improper for a recluse, living on alms of the country, to do what ever favor to maintain his suppoter or gain estimate is called "corrupter of families".
Today many monks and even whole communities are actually living in improper relation to certain families, depending on this or that village... group of supporter. Since many live in this or that way in improper ways, doing favors for support, it's seemingly not often the case that there is less urge by fellows in this regard and so a growing serious problem. The fact that there are actually less commentaries shows that this problem has obiviously a long history and today you may often hear about certain heros or bad guys in robes, or whole communities in what ever daily media.
For lay people such things appear often pleasing and welcome and certain undertakings like "feed the hungry", "Take side for animals", "Vegerarism", till "pro abortion", social activities, charities... till very sensible political issuse are often used to catch people at large or small to have supporter.
The biggest problem with it is, that all leads astray of the Dhamma, not to speak of the holly life and destructs of course possible way for those using the good name of the tripple Gems proper.
It does good to stay in good distance if seeing that monks engage in wordily issues and politic, how ever pleasing the certain issue might appear for oneself. It's simply not their business and makes the Sangha appear as damgerous today for those, tomorrow for others.
Where ever such involvements appear, be clear that it is a "hot iron"
The link and the commentaries will give certain further ideas, understanding and references to Suttas as well. Since it is such a broad topic, it's not easy to understand, if not understanding the "economy of the Noble Ones" and the purpose of the Sangha and the holly life well, and needs a lot of explainings in such cases.
Feel how ever free to ask or raise a case, since it is good if many monks see that there are actually people who like to support and learn form a group that walk a different way then the world.
A very good explaining of how even you can addopt the ways of the Noble Ones, yet still involved and with certain duties for depending on certain communities, enjoying the benefits from it, is found in the essay "Wisdom over Justice"
In addition, well suggested by Nyom Chris, maybe one of the many Suttas which display the conduct of a Noble One and those following: AN 10.69. The whole Tipitaka speaks about people who "have gone forth, having left home and it's issues" for a higher, more worthy aim.
Rules as such had to be set out by the Buddha, because more and more "fools" joined the community and was no longer a group of ecxcusively Noble Ones. Everybody who knows todays amouts of rules in certain countries, knows that it is impossible to give for every corrupt minds idea a special rule, and if reading the rule and because it is such a big area this "corrupers of families" the Buddha left much judgement to the acting Sangha itself. (This was added because of the claim in the discussion, that the answere does not exactly match the very specific assumed question.)
Forther reading:
[Q&A] Did the Buddha teach Engaged Buddhism?
Petition from and to the international monastic and lay Sangha
Possible edited an enlaged answer, as well as place for questions and discussions on it here.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]

I guess the OP is asking about national and ethnic politics, and possibly conflict between Buddhists and non-Buddhists.

That might be a good speculation, the answer covers this as well Nyom @ChrisW ,or does he see a conflict?

In the one example, the only interview I've seen, with a nationalist monk, the monk talked about his "flock" (his people, his Buddhists, his nation) who need to be protected from attacks by non-Buddhists of another ethnicity. It seems to me (as an amateur historian) that kind of reasoning or propaganda has been a motive for many wars, nearly every war, and is an example of a "political" statement and activity ... reading your answer I don't see clearly how that political activity is viewed ... and the Vinaya rule you quoted seems to me to be more small-scale and local, "family" not "nation".

If I were to try to answer this question I might quote the sutta about "talk of kings, robbers, armies, etc." ... technically though that's a sutta, isn't it? not Vinaya...

Not really, it merely shows how big such can grow. Actually, if such appears, one can say that such as Sangha has disappeared, not to speak of understanding. That counts for laypeople as well if not seeing, ChrisW. How ever, simply upvote it, my person is not here to do anybody a favor.

There are many suttas and stories, it catches the main point of "one how has gone forth". As told, its a big topic and a tiny but impotand rule, to possible act on subjects falling in such.

And the Suttas are the roots of Vinaya, just that they display more how Noble Ones live and fail, yet are not the tool to act within the Sangha, but to understand, the Suttas are possible better references for one outside.

Political activities often include divisive speeches to break people apart, and speeches where political opponents are belittled.
Political activities may or may not include false speech, transfer of money, possible bribery or deception, relaying of messages or running of errands for other people, making forecasts for political victories or failures, scheming, persuading, hinting and belittling.
Below are some excerpts from the Samannaphala Sutta (DN2) (which is from the Sutta Pitaka and not the Vinaya):

"And how is a monk consummate in virtue? ....
"Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the
  truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the
  world. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What
  he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart
  from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell
  here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus
  reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are
  united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks
  things that create concord. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"He abstains from accepting gold and money.
"He abstains from running messages... from buying and selling... from
  dealing with false scales, false metals, and false measures... from
  bribery, deception, and fraud.
"He abstains from mutilating, executing, imprisoning, highway robbery,
  plunder, and violence.
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these —
  talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and
  scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside;
  women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of
  the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past
  and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of
  whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly
  topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, are addicted to running messages and errands for people such
  as these — kings, ministers of state, noble warriors, brahmans,
  householders, or youths [who say], 'Go here, go there, take this
  there, fetch that here' — he abstains from running messages and
  errands for people such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, engage in scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, and
  pursuing gain with gain, he abstains from forms of scheming and
  persuading [improper ways of trying to gain material support from
  donors] such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
  signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; ...  ; making predictions for state
  officials; .....; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
  march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
  their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
  triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
  triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
  triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
  drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
  rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
  will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
  counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
  and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.


text:
How do Bodhisattva vow takers avoid stream entry?
According to the suttas in SN13, a stream enterer (or stream winner or sotapanna) only has at most, seven remaining lifetimes, before they are permanently freed from suffering.
On the other hand, takers of the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow, would forego enlightenment for a very long time (apparently aeons), till they complete the full Bodhisattva training (which I presume is the development of paramitas and the attainment of bhumis).
However, this implies that they need to avoid stream entry, which could cause them to become released from suffering in seven lifetimes at most.
So, how do they avoid stream entry? Do they avoid it by avoiding the practice of insight meditation (vipassana) perhaps?

The last part of the question is addressed here: Is there a Vipassana meditation in the Mahayana tradition?

I think that Mahayana literature teaches that becoming an Arhat is a temporary rest, for example:

Mahayanins are urged to instead take up the path of the bodhisattva and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas. Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the bodhisattva path, presumably when ready. According to the Lotus Sutra, any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path.

Or from The Jewel Ornament Of Liberation by Gampopa,

III. HEARER FAMILY
The family of Hearers consists of those who fear samsara and yearn to achieve nirvana, but who have little compassion. It has been said:

One who is afraid upon seeing the suffering of samsara
    And yearns to achieve nirvana
    But has little interest in benefitting sentient beings—
    These three are the marks of the Hearer family

IV. SOLITARY REALIZER FAMILY
The Solitary Realizer family includes those who possess the above three attributes and in addition are arrogant, keep their masters’ identities secret, and prefer to stay in solitary places. It has been said:

Fear at the thought of samsara, yearning for nirvana,
    Little compassion, arrogance,
    Secretive about their teachers, and enjoying solitude—
    A wise one should understand that these are the marks of the Solitary Realizer family

So these two families, the Hearers and the Solitary Realizers, engage in their respective vehicles and even though they achieve the results of their practices, these results are not the final nirvana. How do they abide when they achieve their fruits? They maintain unafflicted states of meditative concentration, but those states are based on the psychic imprint of ignorance. Since their meditative concentrations are unafflicted, they believe that they have achieved nirvana and remain that way.
If their states are not the final nirvana, then one might argue that the Buddha should not have taught these two paths. Is there a reason the Buddha should teach such paths? Yes. For example, suppose great merchants from this Jambudvipa are traveling the ocean searching for jewels. After many months at sea, in some desolate place, they become completely tired and exhausted and think, “There is no way to get the jewels now”. When they feel discouraged and prepare to turn back, the merchant captain manifests a huge island through his miracle power and lets all his followers rest there. After a few days, when they are fully rested and relaxed, the captain says, “We have not achieved our goal. Now we should go farther to get our jewels.”
Similarly, sentient beings without courage are frightened when they hear about the Buddha’s wisdom. They believe attaining Buddhahood is a great hardship, and think, “I have no ability to do this.” There are other people who are not interested in entering the path, or who enter the path but turn back. To counter these problems, Buddha presented these two paths, and allows them to rest in these states.
As said in the White Lotus of Sublime Dharma Sutra:
Likewise, all the Hearers
  Think that they achieved nirvana,
  But they have not achieved the final nirvana
  Revealed by the Buddha
  They are only resting
When these Hearers and Solitary Realizers are well rested in those states, Buddha understands this and encourages them to attain Buddhahood. How does Buddha encourage them? He awakens them through his body, speech, and wisdom mind.

Also this question has been asked on other sites, for example on reddit and on
Dharma Wheel.

Bakmoon123's answer in your Reddit link says that in Mahayana, the first bhumi is stream entry but the Bodhicitta prevents enlightenment in 7 lifetimes. And also that in Theravada, the vow prevents stream entry.

Yes. I interpret that answer as nearly but not exactly literally like that. I read it as saying, "In the Mahayana school the first Bhumi roughly corresponds to stream entry but it doesn't cause them to have only 7 lives" ... "prevented by the vow" is Theravada. According to Mahayana I think that maybe "stream-entry" and all of the "four stages of enlightenment" are all part of the Śrāvakayāna.

The Bodhisattva vow itself blocks the person from attaining nibbana or at least stream entry. That's the world nature. In fact, once another Buddha declares a bodhistva as a future Buddha, it means he will only attain nibbana when reached buddhahood. Nothing else

The question is illogical & non-sequitur because the Pali in SN 13.1 does not contain the word "lives". Instead, SN 13.1 appears to be about the "breakthrough" and seems to be explaining the stream-enterer has seven more breakthroughs (of fetters) at most.
Therefore, if reincarnation really existed (which really does not) and if SN 13.1 is understood as suggested above, the stream-enterer could have billions more lifetimes because there are seven more fetters to break at most (rather than seven more lives).
In short, there is no contradiction because the Mahayana Bodhisatva has broken at least three fetters; thus knows the path to end suffering, to share with all sentient beings.

As for Mahayana, it is a different religion than the Pali suttas, even though Mahayana ideas were obviously influenced by the corruptions that arose in Theravada, such as the Jataka Tales.
This said, the Pali suttas do not ever depict a stream-enterer reincarnated in the human world again. All stream-enterers, after they end stream-entry ('death') appear in a pure abode, where final Nibbana is attained. This again shows why SN 13.1 does not mean 'seven more lives'.
To conclude, the Buddha-Dhamma is said to be visible here-&-now & verified by those with vipassana. Minds that have real vipassana (seeing anatta) do not believe in reincarnation. The Pali keeps the supramundane & mundane distinctly separate (refer to MN 117). Trying to reconcile two superstitions (misinterpretation of SN 13.1 and Mahayana Bodhisatva belief) is not Buddha-Dhamma but, as described in SN 23.2, the activity of children playing with sandcastles.

Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever &
  craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun
  with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of
  them. SN 23.2

"sattakkhattuṃparamatā" in SN13.1 means 7 lives.  If it is understood as "7 fetters remaining" rather than 7 lives, then to understand many other sutta that describe Sakadagami as once returner are in direct contradiction. Since Sakadagami has exactly same 7 fetters to unbind with exception of 4th and 5th weaker fetters compare to those of stream enterers. Using your understanding of remaining 7 fetters, would not fit with once-returning, or none-returners (with 5 fetters intact). why didnt Buddha use 7 remaining fetters to describe 1-returner.

i searched high and low, an I could not find sattakkhattuṃparamatā to describe Sakadagami as having 7 fetters remain (as the way you understand it and put in in your answer). All sutta regarding Sakadagami has 1- attuṃparamatā. Even more contradiction for Anagami with 5 fetters remain but none-returner. if your understanding is correct, 7 lives = 7 fetters remaining, then Sakadagami = 1 live = 1 fetters remaining.. and anagami = none returner = no fetters which is problematic.

The way to test your understanding of sutta is using it as prediction tool. If your understand is correct, it should have predicting power since Buddha often talked about same subject in different ways . " 7 remaining fetters" does not stand the predicting power when trying to understand about once-returner or none returner.  Your understanding of this sutta is in conflict with remaining fetters of once , and none -returner.

Please refrain from false speech. Sattakkhattuṃparamatā does not mean 7 lives. sattakkhattuṃ means 7 times. Paramata means "at most". As I said in my post, the suttas never mention a stream-enterer returning to earth after the termination of life. Your ideas are superstition & not Buddhist. The Buddha taught his Dhamma is visible here & now. Please refraining from spamming worthless superstition that leads to more craving & grasping to phenomena as self. Thanks

The Buddha taught the Dhamma is tested via realisation.

The comment about Sakadagami is irrelevant because SN 13.1 is only about stream-enterer.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gaining (possible not good for those desire for becoming a Buddha and not firm in it.]
Usually/practical by avoiding to listening the Dhamma of a Buddha and taking care of not gaining wisdom or right view. So avoiding the three Juwels as good as possible, if still present in the world.
Maybe some food for benefical thought: A Bodhisttva is a member of the Sangha?
Here in Cambodia, people who have not really taken refuge into the Juwels, so if speaking about people not explicit Dhammika, are called "Buddh(a)bodhisatt(a)".
Since the root of stream-entry is right view, this has to be avoided, if one wishes to become a Buddha. If such is possible, having been touched by the good Dhamma... who knows...
Of coures it might be, that seven lives as a certain devas lasts as long as a world period. Did not made more researches in this regard.
This might be also useful for those desiring becoming a Buddha: Bodhisatta Path Answers of questions
And a nice Bodhisatta-story: The Spiritual Partner
Sotapanna (stream-enter/wisdom throw hearing) is connected with the four Noble Truth. If, when a person heard the 4NT, understanding them, not mental cognitive defect, can than, later, take on Bodhisatta-vows and avoid stream entry: my person doubts. He/she will gain the path latest with death. So possible a wasted time with a lot of pain, struggle and suffering, if having heard and understood the Dhamma, to try to avoid entry afterwards.
Some say there is a point in the Vipassana-states, where one might have gained some good insight, and where one is able to decide. A hint on it is in the 'Question and Answer' link.
It might be therefore (for a desire of becoming a Buddha), good to take on the vows before hearing the 4NT and understanding them, e.g. not taking refuge into the current Buddha, his Dhamma, his Sangha.


text:
How to find the right Dhamma teacher
The practice of Buddhism, as with any other spiritual development, largely relies on the guidance of a good master. With the large variety of traditions and practices out there, how should one go about looking for the right teacher to guide one along the (right) spiritual path? I have been to retreats conducted by teachers from the Theravada and Chinese Mahayana tradition, and I am interested to find out more about Tibetan Buddhism.

Welcome again. This seems like a "broad comparison" question (if it's asking "Which is the best school and teacher for me?") -- see Which type of Buddhism is for me? where I asked if it's possible to ask that question.

As I understand, this question is less about picking a school and more about the "how" of "looking for the right teacher to guide one", i.e. about the mechanics of the search process, the places to look, - with the goal of finding personal guidance and not just generic lectures. @Sati, did I get this right?

Yes, you are right!

At this point I venture to say that the school one picks is largely irrelevant. It's much more about the teacher's ability to connect the map of the teaching with the jungle of your immediate living experience. Once you see how the two relate, you can start making progress. As was said in Kalama Sutta:

Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon ... nor upon ... nor upon ... nor upon ... nor upon ... nor upon ... Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," -- enter on and abide in them.

The right teacher will capture your attention and inspire motivation by appealing to things that you yourself value high. Using samsaric inertia as the fuel and stepping stone, he or she will help you cut through habit and get a fresh look at obvious issues that you have been ignoring far too long. The right teacher makes you feel extremely uneasy AND inspired at the same time. Uneasy, because the teacher holds a mirror for you to see that you have been a fool all along. Inspired, because in front of your very eyes you see a perfect role model, a living example of what Dharma actually stands for, far beyond theoretical constructs.
In my experience, traveling/lecturing "rockstar" teachers rarely provide the level of up-and-close personal guidance required to break through. Retreats and books help to a degree but nothing replaces the immediate influence of watching a master go about everyday things.
I'm inclined to say, the best bet is to find a resident teacher/master/lama and join the sangha of students on a permanent basis. Many Zen masters run meditation circles, with some degree of study and personal guidance mixed in. Tibetan lamas regularly take students for the preliminary Ngondro course, from which one can graduate to Vajrayana proper to receive in-depth guidance. In any case, I would suggest, search locally for little sanghas organized around a resident master - whether at a temple, or a secular meditation circle.

I would recommend you to pick the tradition closest to the original teachings of the Buddha and try to find a good teacher within that tradition. Trying many traditions would probably lead you to spiritual confusion than progress.
You can discover a good Dhamma teacher by evaluating the following criteria

Are his teachings sensible, skillful and praised by the wise?
Is he living according to what he preaches?
Are the teachings inline with the Tipitaka and the commentaries?
Does your understanding of the Four Noble Truths increase by following his teachings?

I think the four items that you listed are maybe a quote. Could you add maybe a sentence or a little paragraph to each one, to clarify or give an example of what each one means? "Are his teachings sensible, skillful and praised by the wise? For example, ...".

It's not a quote. It's basically excerpts of Kalama sutta coupled with personal experience. What do you mean by examples? Aren't they pretty straight forward?

What do you mean by examples? I meant "examples from your personal experience". But you don't have to write that, it was just a suggestion or invitation. Aren't they pretty straight forward? OK then. In or from the Kalama sutta, the "example" is the Buddha.

I'd rather not mention names of contemporary teachers to keep the answer general. Yes, the Buddha is the best teacher of them all. Next comes enlightened beings. Above four criteria can help to identify probable enlightened beings or at least those who are well on the way.

The Dhamma of the Buddha is the right dhamma teacher; as stated in the Pali suttas.

I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back... Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. DN 16

The Udayi Sutta (AN 5.159) describes the five qualities in one qualified to teach the Dhamma:

"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
  within the person teaching. Which five?
"(1) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  step-by-step.'
"(2) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"(3) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out
  of compassion.'
"(4) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
  for the purpose of material reward.'
"(5) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  without hurting myself or others.'
Note: According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting
  oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down.

And how do you know if the teacher teaches the right Dhamma? Use the criteria of the Kalama Sutta as mentioned in Andrei Volkov's answer.

I tried to follow everything from the nissayamuccaka-course which I described in this answer, when I was still in a monk-hood by myself; and I had a low-quality teacher for about five years; before I found a perfect teacher from pa-auk forest monastery
(this monastery also published other English-language Dharma articles here) who have all of the qualities listed below, that were specified in the tipitaka and commentary.
I met the pa-auk teacher too late, so I am being a layman now. However, it was my previous effort and experience which gave me the confidence to choose pa-auk to be my kammaṭṭhāna teacher.
The qualities of a teacher, and the operating procedure to choose and to apply with the teacher, have been briefly described in Chapter 4 of the Path of Purification.
Furthermore, in my opinion, the significant quality of a teacher is paṭisambhidā: because all ariya must have paṭisambhidā, at least in his kammaṭṭhāna. So he should have these qualities:

His teacher descent, he must derived from a tipitaka memorizer (buddha-sāvaka, suta-buddha; V.N. Mahāvagga Nissayamuccnakathā).
His enlightenment, he must achieved at least upacāra-samādhi and balava-vipassanā (4 paṭisambhidā; V.N. Mahāvagga Nissayamuccnakathā).
His tipitaka memory, he must graduated through at least
nissayamuccaka-course (V.N. Pācittiyakaṇḍa Ovādakasikkhāpada's commentary).
His tipitaka understanding, he must not cut tipitaka off or make
tipitaka conflict each other. Because tipitaka was memorized by
single commentary teacher group at 1st saṅgāyanā, so it  must be a
single package that compatibility with each other (pro in tipitaka relation, dhamma-paṭisambhida&attha-paṭisambhidā).
His pali skill, he must understand pali in advance (nirutti-paṭisambhidā).
He must be a genius one (paṭibhāna-paṭisambhidā).

Furthermore, in tipitaka and commentary tradition, since mahākhandhaka of vinaya mahāvagga is completed authored by upāli in 1st saṇgāyanā, all layman's teachers must have all of these qualities, that concluded by upāli in bhikkhunovādakasikkhāpada's commentary (which I translate below as follows):

Qualities of nissayamuccaka-bhikkhu (teaching lay people)

Proficient to recite pāṭimokkha-pāli and to understand it's commentary.
Proficient to recite and to understand 4 bhāṇavāra (~1,000 syllable) of sutta and their commentary, to teach laymen on uposatha
day.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for bhikkhu's life such as andhakavindasutta, mahālahulovādasutta, ambaṭṭhasutta, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for teaching in 3 chances: banquet for saṅgha by layman (nidhikaṇdasutta), funeral
ceremony (tirokuṭṭasutta), and auspicious ceremony (maṅgalasutta).
Enough understand to judge/to decide about saṇgha's ceremony such as uposatha, pavāraṇā, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand his kammaṭṭhānā throughout the nibbāna-course.
5 years experience in monk hood as a monk.

Qualities of bhikkuparisūpaṭṭhāpaka-bhikkhu (teaching bikkhus)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhus (ūpajjhā-ācāriya, nissaya-ācāriya), they must increase their skill level to all of the following qualities.
These are for abhivinaya teaching:

Proficient to recite mahāvibhagha and bhikkhunivibhaṅga (first 3 books of thai 45 books pali-tipitaka) of vinaya-pitaka-pali. At least, he
can relay with the other 3 bhikkhu. Proficient to understand it's
commentary, too.
Proficient to recite all saṇgha's ceremony in vinaya-pitaka mahāvagga and julavagga.
Proficient to recite 14 vatta in vattakhandhaka.

These are for abhidhamma (kammaṭṭhāna) teaching:

Proficient to recite one of this suttanta-pali: mūlapaṇṇassa (1st/3 parts of M.N.) for student in M.N. faculty, mahāvagga (2nd/3 parts of
D.N.) for student in D.N. faculty,
sagāthavagga+nidānavagga+khandhavāravagga of S.N. or  mahāvagga of
S.N. for student in S.N. faculty, before half of A.N.  or after half
of A.N.  or ekakanipāta+dukanipāta of A.N. for student in A.N.
faculty, jātaka+commentary  (because kammaṭṭhāna was described in
commentary) for student in jātaka faculty.

Qualities of bhikkunovdaka-bhikkhu (teaching bhikkunīs)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhunī, they must increase their skill level to all of these qualities:

Proficient to recite whole tipitaka-pali and commentary-pali. Or at least, he still must recite whole tipitaka, but he can recite just one
commentary of suttanta, first 4 parts of commentary of 7 parts of
abhidhamma. However, vinaya-commentary is what he must recite it all.

Reference: tipitaka and commentary of vinaya pācittiyakaṇḍa bhikkhunovādakasikkhāpada and vinaya mahāvagga mahākhandhaka.

(I still find it difficult to reference the tipitaka and commentary using english resources: there's no translation, very long pages, confused categories, cutting some parts off the tipitaka, cutting commentary off from pali canon, etc.)

Related topic: Should Lay Buddhists Teach the Dhamma?

This is an important question and answer. I will very appreciate to one who help me prove my answer. I use al most all my free time to research and to write each topic. I don't want to make it as just an unreadable answer one, but my english skill still not too good enough.

I tried to improve the formatting. I think it's readable, thank you.

Be wary of the concept of guru and especially the person who claims to be one. Extraordinary teachers are rare and impossible to find. It is better to find a traditional and experienced teacher who makes no special claims. You may even consider a modern meditation center that offers MBSR, MBCT, and psychotherapy that has a large membership. Progress in meditation is largely psychological.

Sati,
assuming that a seek "for a right Dhamma-teacher" underlies here by the desire to gain Awakening and answering the question of what a seeker might possible do, for finding a proper teacher, is very good given in Bhante Thanissaro's Essay:

The Power of Judgment, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2011; 6pp./19KB)
  Developing good judgment is the key to becoming a true friend — first to yourself and then to those around you.

All of the possibility to gain such a teacher is by the seeker at least, or let my person say be being touched, good or bad, comes it's way.
How it happens, that a person gain Dhamma, enters the stream, is sure best explained by the Buddha himself as reported:

[Kapadika Bharadvaja:] "To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth."
[The Buddha:] "There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion...

This Sutta and good sorted others, as well as practical advices, Orion may find in the given essey:
Into the Stream - A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other gain in the world]