text:
Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead
One of the four lowest realms of the 31 planes of existence is the realm of the hungry ghosts or hungry shades or petas or pretas.
These cannot be souls or spirits, because in Buddhism, there is no transmigration of souls.
On this page, it is described as:

peta yoni — here the beings have deformed bodies and are usually
  consumed by hunger and thirst

In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts or petas. Those who offer this, would not go unrewarded for their generosity, according to the sutta. This appears to be the practice described in the Tirokudda Kanda.
Ven. Nanda Mahathera writes here:

Peta-yoni (pa + ita) lit., departed beings, or those absolutely devoid
  of happiness. They are not disembodied spirits of ghosts. They possess
  deformed physical forms of varying magnitude, generally invisible to
  the naked eye. They have no planes of their own, but live in forests,
  dirty surroundings, etc.

Ven. Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo describes them here as:

Hungry shades come in all different shapes and sizes — really
  entertaining, the hungry shades. Some of them have heads as big as
  large water jars, but their mouths are just like the eye of a needle:
  that's all, no bigger than the eye of a needle! Some of them have legs
  six yards long, but hands only half a foot. They're amazing to watch,
  just like a cartoon. Some of them have lower lips with no upper lips,
  some of them are missing their lips altogether, with their teeth
  exposed all the time. There are all kinds of hungry shades. Some of
  them have big, bulging eyes, the size of coconuts, others have
  fingernails as long as palm leaves. You really ought to see them. Some
  of them are so fat they can't move, others so thin that they're
  nothing but bones. And sometimes the different groups get into
  battles, biting each other, hitting each other.

Based on all the descriptions above, it sounds to me like hungry ghosts or hungry shades are microorganisms. It also makes sense that when food offerings are made to the dead, they would be consumed by microorganisms.
Questions:

What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?
Could they be microorganisms? Have any Buddhist scholars considered this possibility?
Is offering of food to the dead still practised today?
Is this a recommended practice or is it not recommended? And why? According to this answer, the Buddha neither rejected nor endorsed the practice.
Does the opinion of the different Buddhist schools differ from each other on this?

Interesting question...

What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?

Likely no one can really explain in words so to make you understand unless you reach the 4th Dhyana/Jhana and see them yourselves ;). Because only by reaching 4th Dhyana you can have Rddhi/Iddhi (psychic power) - to see other dimensions. Yet unlikely meditator if do complete the 4th Dhyana will go around proclaiming he/she achieved 4th Jhana! Imagine an Arhat/Arahant going around town telling everybody he achieved Arahant-hood?!
However, some hints from the Sutras/Suttas. Hungry-shades are related to one of the Five Hinderances: Greed. In your quoted Ven. A. L. Dhammadharo's, the summerized characteristic is they can't have the way to consume food even they wanted to.

heads as big as large water jars, but their mouths are just like the eye of a needle: Can't swallow food
Some of them have legs six yards long, but hands only half a foot: Can't reach food or break their bodies
Some of them have lower lips with no upper lips, some of them are missing their lips altogether, with their teeth exposed all the time: Can't eat/chew food

When one contemplate the Hinderance of Greed: Greed is always unsatisfiable, not because of lack, it's the unsatisfiable-ness, wanting more that we called greed, so even there's plenty, to the greed it still means lack, needs more. This unsatifiable-ness backfires caused actualizing their lack-ness: needle mouth, over-short hands, no lips. When this mental state becomes the dominate it will manifest as a physical form that match such mental state. All forms are the manifestation of corresponding consciousness (consciousness is not really an exact term but can't think up better one yet). Animal form is animal consciousness, human form human consciousness. Beware and condemn those Neo-Buddhism followers those have an apetite for twisting the Dharma/Dhamma and fitting it into their self-invented "self-views". If an animal mental state is a self-view of a human how does the existence of animal realm exist in our world? It's ludicrous for those clever men taking a literal term "mental state" treating like a real Buddhist doctrine.

Could they be microorganisms? Have any Buddhist scholars considered this possibility?

That's very insightful. I would agree partly with this. Yes, as far as I know there is one Chinese Buddhist teacher Nan Hui-chin said so. I would say this realm some take it as also include the microorganisms, or, mcgms are in-between realms of animals and Hungry-shades. I think the realms should not be read as rigid territories. Like we say rainbows have 7 colours, but we know we can't really exactly say that is red, that is orange in the rainbow. The realms are like this too.

Is offering of food to the dead still practised today?

I think in Asian countries most likely, in occasions, like during Qhingming Festival, but many are cultural traditions, not Buddhist tradition. Monasteries may do this too - but for Hungry-shades, as part of their daily practice of sending merits and blessings to all the sentient beings. In Mahayana Monasteries, they usually also throw 7 grains to the courtyards for the Garudas. Because when the Garuda King converted to the Buddha and promised not to kill, however he mentioned there was a difficulty, for the karmic effect all Garudas must eat Nagas as food, or die. Thus the Buddha promised him from then and to the future his Bhikhus will feed them with the grains, so they wouldn't die even didn't eat Nagas. Just read about this story haven't been bother to find any Sutra/Sutta reference yet, but that's what the monasteries do. Would be interested to know if it also practiced by the Theravada monasteries :).

Is this a recommended practice or is it not recommended? And why? According to this answer, the Buddha neither rejected nor endorsed the practice.

Personal opinion, I don't think it should be recommended. The Hungry-shades won't be able to consume the food. Unless it's on a specific day or with specific blessing by an accomplished Buddhist/Bhikhus, Bodhisattva or Buddha. If also included the mcgms, it's bad to the hygiene, and mcgms have their way already in natural environment.

Does the opinion of the different Buddhist schools differ from each other on this?

As far as I study, I think the general principles are same but may vary in practice.

It is common in Sri Lankan' Buddhist to pass the merits to departed relatives and friends after a wholesome action (Dana etc.). Some people offer food but it is not in line with Buddha's teaching.
There is a section in Sutta pitaka named Petavatthu. Unfortunately no English translation as yet.
https://suttacentral.net/pv

One is translated, here: Tirokudda Kanda: Hungry Shades Outside the Walls

Roben,
In regard to Robens question one by one, straight, defilement and doubts provoking and possible making nervous, for the gain of faith and encouragement to work on the base:
What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?
Could they be microorganisms?
A being ("mind") not capable to get even small satisfaction, even if food righ in front, not capable to take it. Not able to move from it's place, not able to trade. A famous Vietnamese Monks said once: "People who spend their times in Dhamma-centers without to grasp the Dhamma.
Many being in the internet-realm have actually a mind like a hungry ghost. It's good to dedicate shares to them, if having once made merits befor they came in that state, they might be able to take.
Have any Buddhist scholars considered this possibility?
Scholars consider much. It's good to ask those knowing and seeing and with trust in the Noble Ones. If consdering, are scholars today not the most benefical provider for food for hungry ghost, thinking on the many new articels and consume of their work. They possible make much merits if knowing that and setting the mind to their ancestors and hungry ghosts.
Is offering of food to the dead still practised today?
Sure. Where ever there is still right view, where ever there is gratitude, where ever people know mother and father, where ever people know how seldom to gain a human life, where ever cause and effect, destinations of beings, taught by the Buddha, are known, there no one would eat before not having given a share to those before first. Yet it is also fast disapearing on earth at the same time, like right view, the Tripple Gems, prospering times...
Is this a recommended practice or is it not recommended?
The Buddha all wise recommended gifts to ancestors and spirits, recommend, and will recommend. So his, there good disciples, followers do.
And why?

Maker of gratitute. What ever you have been given, you might be able to use, is a sacrify of those having been here befor you and you might even have receive gifts at the time you have been a hungry ghost, had a mind like one, with patient and compassion, yourself.
In advanced for one self, esay to fall in that stat, even right next minute. Not having given, no support can be ever expected.
to be best respected and protected by spirits and ghosts
there are ghost and family members who can be very envy, disturbing and ill-willed, not getting a share.

According to this answer, the Buddha neither rejected nor endorsed the practice.
This answer is not right, uninformed and colored by modernism and faith in materialism rather into that of what the Buddha and wise recommend and all cultures and elders did till some years.
Even if intended to drive people to more refine merits, it misses the point to be in the mids of hungry ghosts and that there are less being who will even reach human life, having gained one for now, in the next, not to speak about capable for grasping the higher Dhamma, and for those having reached firm confidence, such small generousity and good sample for later generations is not a matter of defilements and stinginess.
Does the opinion of the different Buddhist schools differ from each other on this?
In regard of what can be said as old tradition, wiser, with practice: No. There is no school that can be called within the footsteps of Dhamma of the Buddha, with does not only recomment but also practice. They might differ in practice, rituals, folk explainings, focus, intensity, but not on the root: right view, gratitude and generosity.
The only "tradition" (with it's "monks" and lay peopke) that likes to make a better and wiser copy is modernism, secularism and scholar-hood, modern approaches, but they are not regarded as within the foot-steps of the Dhamma of the Buddha.
Some food for inspirations out of "Googlyana", some word written years ago:

Offerings for hungry ghosts in Googleyana
Hungry ghost in "Samsara - Kinds of being by Ven. Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu
Dhammavampire und hungrige Geister - Dhammavamps and hungry ghosts, reflection and encouragements (in German language)

Outside the walls they stand,
& at crossroads.
At door posts they stand,
returning to their old homes.
But when a meal with plentiful food & drink is served,
no one remembers them:
Such is the kamma of living beings.
Thus those who feel sympathy for their dead relatives
give timely donations of proper food & drink
— exquisite, clean —
[thinking:] "May this be for our relatives.
  May our relatives be happy!"

And those who have gathered there,
the assembled shades of the relatives,
with appreciation give their blessing
for the plentiful food & drink:
"May our relatives live long
because of whom we have gained [this gift].
We have been honored,
and the donors are not without reward!"
For there [in their realm] there's
no farming,
no herding of cattle,
no commerce,
no trading with money.
They live on what is given here,
hungry shades
whose time here is done.
As water raining on a hill
flows down to the valley,
even so does what is given here
benefit the dead.
As rivers full of water
fill the ocean full,
even so does what is given here
benefit the dead.
"He gave to me, she acted on my behalf,
they were my relatives, companions, friends":
Offerings should be given for the dead
when one reflects thus
on things done in the past.
For no weeping,
no sorrowing
no other lamentation
  benefits the dead

  whose relatives persist in that way.

But when this offering is given, well-placed in the Sangha,
it works for their long-term benefit
and they profit immediately.
In this way
  **the proper duty to relatives has been shown**,

  great honor has been done to the dead,

  and monks have been given strength:

The merit you've acquired
                isn't small.
Tirokudda Kanda: Hungry Shades Outside the Walls

May what ever being able to take this gift of Dhamma, have a satisfying and shareful share. May the Devas tell those not knowing, about the merits done here.

"Nur wenige der Menschen sind es, die, wenn sie als Menschen abscheiden, unter Menschen wiedergeboren werden; viel mehr aber sind es der Menschen, die, wenn sie als Menschen abscheiden, in der Hölle, im tierischen Schoß, in der Gespensterwelt wiedergeboren werden." (S 56, 102 - 104)
"only a view human, when departing form human Existence, are reborn as humans, but many humans, when they departing from human existence, are reborn in hell, in an animal womb, in the realm of hungry shades (petas)
from "What leads to Peta-existence

In regard of what is sharing merits, feel free to look here.
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant to be used for commercial purpose or other wordily gains, not meant for making one a favor, but intended to liberation: so given to share without bounds to such tings)

Buddha didn't say much about hungry ghost realm. From my collection, he went on and described the appearances of about 21 types of hungry ghost seen by him and Ven Moggallana.  I will share trivia facts I know and hopefully answer some of your question along the way.

hungry ghost is a realm step down from us human, and one step up from animal wombs.  This is very interesting fact that not many take notice.  Buddha have a great organization of words, no others are equal.  He always spoke of listed of things using one order or the other.  Buddha never switched or said things out of order, ever!  This quality is in Buddha only. Whenever Buddha talked about realms, in every sutta, he said, in precise order, hell-animal wombs-hungry ghost-human-heaven (or reversed order) every time.  Another sutta you can see Buddha's skill in words organization is from 38 blessings, from very simple: not hanging out with fools, to most sophisticated blessings, Nirvana.  You can actually see the complexity of each blessing increases as you read along. No one but Buddha has this kind of words organization.
why else I understand hungry ghost realm is better than being born from animal wombs?  From The Greater Discourse on the Lion’s Roar, Buddha compared being born in Hungry Ghost Realm as sitting under a light small tree subjected to harsh elements.  Compare to being born from Animal Wombs is falling into cest pit, hell is fire pit, human- is sitting under a dense shaded tree, heaven is sitting in a castle, etc.
I think Hungry Ghost is one of "pit stops" for beings from hell to come to higher realms.  Buddha mentioned in many sutta about how rare beings to be born in pleasant realms, dust under finger tips, heavens to human/heavens, human to human/heavens, animal wombs to human/heavens, hungry ghost to human/heaven. From my study, I have not read Buddha talked about being from hell straight to human/heaven.  At this point, I think beings from hell need to stop at animal wombs or hungry ghost first.
Hungry Ghost is a spontaneous birth, so appearance is from either mind (mano), or perception (sanna). I don't think microorganisms is being in hungry ghost realms since they don't appear spontaneously.
It is recommended to remember or dedicated merits (not food) to relatives who have passed away.  I think of my grand parents and other dead relatives often when i do something good.

The main reason I posted my answer because I want to bring awareness to Buddha's skill in organization of words.  I am very impressed with his skill.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

These cannot be souls or spirits, because in Buddhism, there is no transmigration of souls.

They are people or "beings", as the sutta states:

There is the case, brahman, where a certain person... With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears...

'A being' ('satta') is defined in SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 as a state of 'clinging' & 'a view'.

satta 1 hanging, clinging or attached to
PTS Pali English
  Dictionary

In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as
  human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the
  dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts
  or petas.

The sutta also states an offering will not accrue to a human or god. This is because a human or god does not need the gift, which is why the gift does not accrue to them. For example, a virtuous (human) parent gains merit from giving to its children. When a child gives a gift to its parents, this gift is only a trivial or amusing thing to the parent (rather than something that changes the parent's merit). Or when a rich person (a god) is given a gift, it does not change the rich person. For example, my rich friend returned home from overseas recently and when I visited him after many years I sensed I was not really appreciated by him because he has become very important & rich. But 15 years ago when he was having relationship problems & I helped him, he appreciated me because he was a hungry ghost then, wanting a successful relationship.
Similarly, for beings trapped in hell or animal mind, a gift does not accrue to them because of their chronic state. For example, when people are chronically depressed due to a deep loss (which is 'hell'), giving a gift does not help them. Similarly, an animal, such as a sexual predator, does not respond to gifts because they do not have the disposition for loving others. For example, I know a man who is a sexual predator, who is bitter & twisted. I helped him once for many hours set up & learn to use his new computer but he is never friendly when he sees me. He hates everyone. He is incapable of gratitude because his mind is animal mind, every morning & every afternoon on the same beat looking for tourist women to have sex with.
But for a hungry ghost, a person who is lonely or searching for love, a gift accrues to them because the hungry ghost is searching for love or gifts. The hungry ghost wants to be reborn in a human relationship & they respond very positively to receiving gifts.

In the same way, a family member who has not done enough merit to be human (enlightened) or a god & is also not an animal or hell being but is separated from their family & misses their family will accrue from a gift from their family. This is what the hungry ghost is here, namely, the needy & unenlightened family member who misses their family.
Its like my mother, who I see for one or two weeks per year. My giving gifts to her does not change the enormous merit she has made as a mother. Therefore, my gifts to her are essentially worthless, apart from a token gesture to show I think about her. This is the small but important 'hungry ghost' element in my mother; her need to know her children think about her on her birthday, mothers day, Xmas, etc. Just a small gift of phone call is enough to keep this hungry ghost element satisfied.

The above analysis is supported by the traditional depiction of the Wheel of Life (below), where the antidote, solution or practice for each realm given by the Buddha is depicted as follows:

humane - renunciation
godly - beauty
animal - morality
hungry ghost - generosity
hell - 'the book' - the Four Noble Truths


text:
Judging mindfully
How does a mindfulness practitioner use judgment? I don't know if that is clear about  how to judge or not judge in the Eightfold Path. Is it not clear because different Buddhisms disagree?

How does a mindfulness practitioner use judgment?

Is an intention/action skillful or unskillful? Does an intention/action increase or decrease distance to Nibbana?
Is the intention in line with the Factor of Right Intention, found in The Noble Eightfold Path?
These are examples of the use of judgement.

Knowing judgment, a mindful practitioner knows judgment as being a mere fabrication ... not truth.
Knowing this, he uses his judgment only as a vehicle which other beings can use to advance on their paths towards realizing the truth.
How does he use his judgment?
Every judgment he makes, is based on visible facts ... not truths, which to beings not yet liberated, look like truths.
Without knowing these facts, he does not judge until he knows these facts.
Once the facts are known, they are presented in such a way as if a vehicle was given by which one can advance on the path towards the realization of the truth.

Each factor of the Noble Eightfold Path is related to the use of 'judgment' or 'clear comprehension' ('sampajanna'), except the last factor of Right Concentration, which is the result of right judgment.
Right View is the guide for judgment. By the judgment of Right View, the wholesome categories of Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action & Right Livelihood are established (and the wrong path is rejected). MN 117 states:

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as
  right view. This is one's right view.

Right Effort uses the judgment of Right Mindfulness-&-Clear-Comprehension to prevent & abandon obstacles to Right Concentration & develop the factors that generate Right Concentration. MN 117 states:

Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven
  factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right
  concentration with its supports & requisite conditions.
One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
  wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
  mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, &
  right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

When judgment (clear comprehension) & mindfulness work together, the mind can be established in the non-judgment of Right Concentration. MN 117 states:

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In
  one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right
  speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In
  one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right
  mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In
  one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right
  knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed
  with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

When Right Concentration is reached, mindfulness & clear-comprehension must judge that the mind is in a state of non-judgmentalness.
MN 117 describes how mindfulness is used to judge:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta

The Dhammapada also mentions the importance of right judgment:

316. Those who are ashamed of what they should not be ashamed of, and are not ashamed of what they should be ashamed of — upholding false
  views, they go to states of woe.
317. Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.
318. Those who imagine evil where there is none, and do not see evil where it is — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.
319. Those who discern the wrong as wrong and the right as right — upholding right views, they go to realms of bliss.

A good new Essay on this topic, by Bhante Thanissaro:
Wisdom over Justice An essay on the Buddha’s approach to the pursuit of justice.
And a talk on it: [En/De] Justice vs. Skillfulness - Gerechtigkeit vs. Geschick, Bhante Thanissaro
How to learn judging that is nessesary: The Power of Judgment
And feel, act, judged by the wise: [En/De] In den Augen der Weisen - In the eyes of the Wise, Bhante Thanissaro
To judge best and right mindfulness on your, body, your feelings, your mind and your ideas and mental phenomenas, is what is meant to be mindful, in short.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does Dogen bring good news?
As I understand it, Dogen says that, at least for those new to seated meditation, there is no enlightenment outside seated meditation.
Well, to me that if true that's awful! No speech, no writing, no solidarity, etc.? I think it's this that is the stumbling block along the buddha way, for me.
Does it even have an answer?

to improve your question, i suggest to quote exactly what Dogen said. Thanks. Regards

Dogen is not alone in his opinion.  Samma samadhi is one of the factors of the eightfold path.  Unless you meditate, your practice will never be as deep as it could be.

@xxxx no i know that. i was referring to a more extreme claim

One of Dogen's major teachings is 'practice and enlightenment are one' - what is important for Dogen is continuous effort in the dharma, and the basis of that effort is seated meditation. This applies to all practitioners, new and old alike.
Dogen tended to be disparaging of other schools, but if you want a less partisan Soto opinion you could read 'The teachings of Homeless Kodo' which acknowledges the value of other types of practice.

To clarify a bit: I don't think Dogen means there's no enlightenment outside zazen, he means no difference can be found between enlightenment and the expression of enlightenment, and the expression of enlightenment is practice, whether that's formal zazen, samu (work), ceremonies, eating, washing, using the toilet etc. It's not an easy message to swallow, and not for everyone. Also, Dogen's writing is notoriously difficult, many think deliberately difficult. Good luck :)

samu ceremonies are not different from enlightenment even for those that have not sat zazen??

If you are mindful, everything is an expression of enlightenment.

Perhaps you're reading a paraphrase or mistranslation.
Wikiquote says ...

Zazen is the ultimate practice. This is indeed the True Self. The Buddhadharma is not to be sought outside of this.

... which is more or less what you're quoting or referring to in the OP.

But read item 2-22 (page 64 of 145) of this translation of Shobogenzo Zuimonki -- it says ...

Apart from sitting, there is nothing to seek as the buddha-dharma.

If you read the whole story I think the emphasis is meant to be on "not seeking", that it's "not to be sought" ... perhaps the lesson is that "seeking" is a symptom of desire, craving, aversion, vanity, etc.

The story at the end ...

Baso said, “How can you make a mirror by polishing a tile?”
  Nangaku replied, “How can you become a buddha by practicing zazen?”

... might even imply the opposite about zazen: that the act, or outward form, of sitting is not sufficient.

there are always corrections etc. in zen, ways to go beyond thinking and language... so yea, but then zazen is all effort. etc.

This is dorky, but, whatever atheists say, I think that zen is the truest way to celebrate!
Better than drinking the blood of your enemies anyway.
So, even if Dogen does not bring "good news": he bloody well should.

In his later writings, Dogen set forth a number of very detailed texts on topics like reading and reciting Sutras, cleaning the temple, liturgy and ritual, general temple discipline, etc. He said all of this constitutes “practice”, even stretching the definition of “Zazen” to include these things. So no, “just sitting” is not the whole story after all, or if it is, it includes a very wide range of affairs.
Dogen also wrote a powerful text on the importance of moral discipline, and the Lotus Sutra is mentioned several hundred times in the Shobogenzo. In the fascicle “Taking Refuge in the Three Jewels” he calls the Lotus Sutra “The great king and grand master of all the various Sutras that Shakyamuni wrote, with all the others serving as its loyal subjects” (Kie bupposobo, Dogen 2.37).
Daily Sutra study took place from 4-5 pm without fail according to Dogen’s schedule for activities at Eiheiji Temple.
Lastly there is the famous and beloved text he wrote on “Instructions for the Head Cook.” Deeply moved by the wisdom of a temple cook who was also a monk but had little time for seated zazen, Dogen stressed that the position of temple cook should be considered a special high honor to be bestowed on a wise monk. In minute detail, he describes the steps for food acquisition, preparation, kitchen cleaning etc. and seems to regard the intensely focused precision of a cook who follows the rules to the letter as a not only valid but esteemed form of special practice.
So…in short, just sitting can mean more than literally just sitting. And why not? Dogen’s legendary word play gives him license to do whatever he wishes with mere words, no?

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

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


text:
Can one find liberation independent for himself?
Ven. Members of the Sangha, Ven. Fellows,
Valued Upasaka, Upasika,
Dear readers and interested,
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
since the root-consideration of this possible vey popular idee "you can", is very deep connected with the fundation for the path liberation, right view, in means of gratitude, e.g. "there is mother and father, gifts and sacrifies...", my person thought that it's maybe interesting to investigate this matter of the abcestor-ship of the Noble One more in detail, so to possible cut of "when ever I like, I could" yet with it's rare oppotunities, that one really could.
Can a being develope indepentently the path, it's skills, requirements... to awakening for itself?
Or does it nevertheless have "mother and father, gifts and sacrifies... brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, (proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves)*" as prerequisite?
*. set in brackes, given here that nobody would proclaim, as foundation for this idea
References and similies of and from the past Noble Ones, Buddhas, Paccecabuddhas, there history... welcome.
(Stories like Devatatta, who is said to become a Paccecabuddha one time, come to mind, yet met and taught by a Buddha...)
(Note: This question is not meant for use of commercial purpose or any other wordily gain, but intended for liberation only, so to give and share without bound to the world)

Yes, you can but it is something like trying to re-invent the wheel or discover electricity.

Good argument to prevent from doing, but does not cut of the believe that having access to knowledge about electricity is lasting and therefore does not answer the question, meets it's purpose and seems to be based exclusively on assuming, believe without even reasoning, Nyom Sarath. It's not a question for someone satisfied in firm confidence at least, mere a challenge on saddha. Tell, how could Sarath!

@Bhante. This is not a discussion-site. Please use the Chat-rooms. Thanks.

Yes. But  we don't wanna act like a chimpanzee  which try to make own evolution to be a human. In the other word, we don't have millions years old to change ourselves from a chimpanzee to a human.

Acariya Warapol says "yes". Then please explain. To understand why, see comment under Upasaka Saraths similar answer, since this does not answer the question and it's purpose.

Buddha wandered in Samsara for many aeons practicing to be a Buddha. We have to do the same if we want to be a Buddha ourselves.

The enlightened mind is independent (MN 56; MN 38) & viveka. Even though the Buddha has gifted the path, in the state of liberation there is independence from the teacher (MN 56).
"There is mother and father, gifts & sacrifices" is bondage (upadhi) & not liberation (MN 117).
"There is mother and father, gifts & sacrifices" is meritorious right view for puthujjana (worldlings).

No.
One must sacrifice and give immense treasures in order to advance on his path towards liberation.
One, who has sacrificed and given immense treasures, will be born in such a future where liberation is just a mere steps ahead.
The merit he has done, will define if he will be able to attain liberation independently or not.
There are beings which acquired such a high degree of merit by sacrificing and giving gifts, that they are born by apparition, in healthy and long lasting bodies, sitting in lotus stance, meditating and contemplating the truth independently for themselves. But even these, as you see, had to sacrifice and give, in order to be rewarded with such and such future.


text:
Details on what may be given as alms
Am very new to the Theravada Buddhist practices and would like to know specific items that could be given as alms. My understanding is that a monk cannot cook for himself from items given and further is not able to ask for specific items. This makes it difficult.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Offering of alms to monks and nuns is likely different in Buddhist minority countries, compared to Buddhist majority countries.
Please see this page by the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (BSWA), for a guide on offering food to the Sangha of BSWA.
Please see this page by the Amaravati Buddhist Monastery in Hertfordshire, England, for a similar guide.
Please see this page by the
Sirimangalo International Monastery and Meditation Centre in Ontario, Canada, for a similar guide.
The three monasteries mentioned above are based on the Thai Theravada tradition.

It is important to consider the monk or nun does not eat after noon (12pm) therefore what you offer them must sustain or nourish them for the rest of the day.
Also, it depends on whether you visit them or they visit your home.
I offer a full meal of the food I personally prepare for myself, which is brown rice, lots of vegetables & protein (fish, boiled egg, tofu or combination). Plus some fruit.
If my home is visited (in passing), I spoon the food straight from my storage containers into their bowl (which, for me, is the cooking pots). The important thing is to not make a fuss about the offering because a monk or nun must be easy to look after.
I spoon the rice into the bowl, until I am asked to stop. Then the curry, until asked to stop. Then offer some fruits, which I place on the top of bowel or offer on a tray, so the person can take it (without hand contact).
If the ordained is of the opposite sex, you should avoid hand to hand contact but place things in & on the top of the bowl, on a tray or on a table.
You can also ask if they need any body soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, washing detergent, insect repellent, sunscreen, band-aids or other small personal items for personal hygiene & health.
You can offer tea or juice but generally they have water. Small long-life juice may be good they can keep for the afternoon (although some monks & nuns say fruit juice not allowed after 12pm).

Mr./ Mrs. Smith, that is a very thoughtful question. Generally you may offer what ever you feel inspired or feel that it is of use, regardless if the Monk might be allowed or willing to receive, would deed in intention is done.
Some give a flower, just picked for their joy, some a shady seat to rest, some a joyful and devoted bow or folded hands, some a wish "May the Ven. gets all he need for his way. May he never miss anything."
My person assumes here, that Mr/Mrs Smith asks specific of what putting a alms-food searching monk in the bowl.
It's maybe good to count here some things he might not be able to receive or make use of it:

raw meat, raw fish

certain kinds of meat, like snakes, tiger, bear, dog, horse, human

uncooked rice, corn, seeds, flour... (food that need to be cooked fist), some receive instand food

he might have difficulties with whole fruits, coconuts, if not having lay assistence... since not harming sheeds.

Aside of that, there is not much, he might not able to take.
It's how ever good to regard a monk always like a small child in regard of food. Meaning to maybe even think how he can it, what he might need... if having possibilities, but at least it's better to give the half of you hot-dog you just eat, or the candy you just wanted to take, then to deicide you have no luck to be not able to give what is proper to give. Something people often cut of to use a seldom oppotunity. What ever you might have at home, maybe a half apple from yesterday, is great and it's always higher merits to give that what one has, or hangs on, than to organice or take for such a sake.
It's also not a problem to give others then food, if inspired, if seeing an alms-begging monk, like maybe wash items or medicine. A lone living Tudong-monk depends nearly in all exclusively on his alms round and wise people. Sometimes even a Dhamma-book is a good gift.
It's of course good and a sign of obligation, to thinks also further: to give proper amount and what he might be able to use and carry. How to open a conserve for example. There are those not using dishes, spoon. It could be that his bowl is full of rice and not other food would have any more place.
It's also totally not wrong to ask to take a look into the bowl, so that one could see what is missing. It's also not wrong to ask for the bowl to fill it. It's also not wrong to ask for waiting, offer a place to sit, and prepaer food, or spontanious invite into the house or a place to receive food. In such cases, when inviting to take his meal, it's good to think that he will maybe not provided with later requirements, like drinks and tonic. Speaking as exclusively alms-goer with no other support, it's good to think also on water and tonic-drink for the afternoon. For monks living in that way, what ever is given on his round, that is his nourishment for another day, no store or another source. Some eat also just one time, exclusively what is given on the alms round into the bowl.
It's not bad to think in that way always, even if in the city. One does not know normaly a monks circumstances. So it's not good to think in ways like "oh, that he will provided there and there" or "that will be organised in his monastery".
Best thinking like if meeting a child that would not claim.
Hope that gives a more lighter and joyful spectrum of the many chances. And Mr/Mrs. can not make anything wrong, that's most importand! Just being "creative" and circumspect without giving selfish thoughts and doubts any change in such blessed moment, is the best.
If visiting a monastery, best to let you be assisted by lay assistance there. Importand: since you may give also things to eat for later: What ever a Monk has received on food, he and the other Bhikkhus would not be allowed to eat next day, even if again given. So such food exclusively giving to lay people.
When giving food direct, respectfull and with two hands into the hand of the monk and don't touch, or lift it again.
Give food or what ever, before receiving Dhamma, e.g. as fist thing best, when coming to monks. They might not accept after having given themselves.
It's a good topic and there are often many wrong assumings "a monk eats this", "needs that...", so good to expand if questions arise.
Now my person, nevertheless needs to prepare for his alms-round, so he stopps here.
A warning: Be careful of that what ruins a fool who having gained knowledge! He/she might think in ways like: "The monks must... His duty is... so and so he should receive..." Having gained much knowledge about possible duties of others, not really know practice and as it really is, and forgetting on focussing on wn mindstate, which is the A&O of all here, one makes nothing then demerits, distroys his goodness, with every act one believes to make merits at least. Generosity that is path-supportive requires not only wisdom but also right view. A normal person or even a fool is not able to go or came as even far as this.

May person has to declare a praise here:
Mr/Mrs. Smith question, deed, is an outstanding. Such is the way of a person with upanissaya in the tradition of the Noble Ones, and one with such an attitude can nothing but prosper on the path. Entering a place expecting to meet admirable friends, he/she did not ask for anything but: "Friends, how can I give? What can I give? How can I fill needs? How to serve our teacher, those elder, those guide us, first?" Everybody taking this deed as sample, train his attitude in this way, does not ask and demant at first place, does not speak about rights, but looks of how he best can give and serve is naturally a winner on this path, a person of great wealth a person who will respected and venerated by those of good conduct and wise, where ever appearing, what ever assambling he/she enters, will never have the idea of being poor and in need.
Anumodana!

(My person will try to invest this day, to complet the answer and give as much as possible hints for not getting caught by Mara-kileasas, add talks and readings to have most accessable base for developing the base)
Much mudita!
Possible importand Additions:
Don't break precepts, harm your virtue for the ake of making Dana:
What ever is near and own is good. Do not take, even kill, ly... for the sake of giving. Even is good made, the taking and giving, it's maximum same, but does not bring benefit at least. One who has really nothing to give is gifted, since he can focus one more refine and greater gifts, that of virtue. Sometimes to let go of desire for making Dana can be of more merits than such outwardly act. But beware of self cheating and excuses here as well. Defilements are smart and quick.
Beware of mara-kilesas, demons of defilements:
There is a nice talk with good story by Ven. Ajahn Lee, that gives good explainings: The Demons of Defilement: (Kilesa Mara)
Do not give to win or harm:
There are many people who give to win, gain in reward wealth, honor, influence, favor. Such is of short wordly merits althought it might work as well. There are even many people who give the highest gift of Dhamma with a thought of harming others with it, and to fight something. That is why the Buddha bound "not harming others with your gift" on what makes a benefical gift.
Juice as tonic for the afternoon: There are some fruits allowed by the Buddha, where juice can be made from, such as citrus fruits, appel, mango... (general tree-fruits and no big fruits). If wishing to serve such, the juice nedd to be cooked then filtered and before serving made cold. Such couldbe keep one day and taken in the afternoon. Sugar might be added. In regard of packed juice, not all monks and communities are not afraid to receive it. It's sometimes not easy to find out if the juice is made in such a way and what it contains. Coffee without milk and tea can be served.
This topic migh be handled most different by certain communities. No problem to ask in advanced "Are the Ven. Sirs able to receive and make use of this or that, if given?" Note that silence usually means not "no", but let you freedom to take action as wished.
Main dishes - Rice nessesary?
No, not at all. Bread, noodles, potatos... what ever main nutrishion, if wishing to give a whole dish, is fine. It's maybe worthy to tell here, that it is not usual to receive/eat more side food ("curry") that 1:4 in regard of "rice". So a monk would possible have not enough food is given a western style dishes with much main food "side-food" and less side-dishes "main food".
Sources for more about food and medicine:
One who knows much about others ways, can help much. Used in this way is of benifit for the user. Used in a way to revile or blame others, even if right, but with a unskillful mind, is of no benefit for one. As giver you are not obligated to know what is needed and proper to give, but if liking to be a perfect giver and have joy with it, it's of good use:
BMC 2, CHAPTER 4: Food
[BMC 2, CHAPTER 5: Medicine (incl. Tonics for the after noon and food for sick monks)
Putting the food in the bowl
Since not proper and not usual to lift the cover of the bowl wide, but food possible careful into it, one by one. It's good not to touch the bowl, it might harm the surface and it's not easy to fix such for a monk (in Asia, out of this, the folk believe that touching the bowl brings bad fortune has been developed). If you wish to give the side dishes, thinking on possible carring about the monks wefare, in small begs (think on that he has possible no way to care good about packing material, is here also good) or put the side dishes as they are into the bowl. Good to consider that some monks go not only for them alone for alms, but share the food under fellows. Some might have themselves or assistant with them, to receive side dishes, sweets, fruits... in kind of small "picknick boxes". Follow as it looks proper for you and the situation and as you think it's good. Some monks may have not a slight problem to take how ever it comes, some might not have the freedom yet. Don't fall into ideas like: "He should, must...", that reduces just you own benefit."
Temperature
Frozen, if not ice-cream, is maybe not so easy to take, but well, if ready to eat. Temperature does only play in regard of what you like to give and possible for receiving play a rule and there will be no requirements at all. To hot: is a monk, althought it might be seldom to meet, carries his bowl with his hands, not on support, no protections, the heat you but into the bowl will touch fast his hand as well, can hurt and make him even to let fall his bowl or not able to carry. One might be cateful on such in regard of fresh cooked rice. In a case such happens, one maybe likes to offer some leaves or a piece of garment, or what ever idea one has.
Recources for Dana and its practice:

Generosity (dana), collections of Suttas in regard of Dana, to understand well the idea about it by the Buddha.

Dana. Caga - Generosity, collection of Suttas in regard of Dana

Dana section in Abhidhamma in Daily Life, by Ashin Janakanbhivamsa [pdf], a very usefull explaining of Dana in daily life in regardof mind, Abhidhamma. Very recommend!

Recommended Dhamma-talks and Essays:

Better to Give than to Consume
The Economy of Gifts
No Strings Attached: The Buddha's Culture of Generosity
Sensitivity through Generosity

Outwardly Foundation for Practice - Admirable Friends:
A person who wishes to prosper to and on the path should avoid to associate with greedy and stingy people, avoid places where demanting, claims and rights are praised and assossiate with people having joy in giving. Not doing so, less joy and learning can be expected.
Inviting people to take part on ones deeds, direct or indirect is very conductive and additional merit. Helping in doing Dana might gain even more merits (because of ones joy and mind state) than the actual giver might gain.
The best wish you may give as crown on your alms, as far as merits can benefit in the world and beyoun (from my persons view, Note it's not supra mundane yet)

May the Ven. accept this offering food of mine, and may this be a support for the highest and most compassionate goal he strives and has left home, to become another Arahat soon if not yet, have long live, honor, well-being and strengh, so that he might be an unexcelled field of merits for many a long time.

In the case he fails to enter the path or receives it without such aspiration and effort, you have one in dept and a future servant, slave or supporter. In the case he matches the high value of your gift, you might never fail to have best connection to the Noble Ones and the path. (This is how big and good rulers, leaders, with lot of servants and surounded by wise appear in this world)
Of course such a wish has to be honest and from deep in the heart, and not just a win-win strategy. Pure heart always wins, there is no lose in giving at all.
On formal citations (note: not required), see: Formal Offerings
Doing in three ways
While "nobody" can judge your mind, it's most importand. As for being aside of that acceptable and benefical, take on a proper body gesture, like step out of you shoes, give not from below but as a request to be accepted, act humble, careful and not fast... speak out what you wish to do and your dedication with humble words and understandable, so that there is no doubt of what you do outwardly. Just giving could be led or what ever. You might wish that he/she holds it for you later.
Rejoice
In you deed while preparing, while doing, and afterwards, always remember it, and wish to be able to do it again. NEVER think in ways, what ever reason, "it might have been better to don't give..." and brun your field of fruits of merits with such.
Anumodana!
(Oh, yes, don't forget to share your merits, invite others to rejoice with it/you and tell about you good deeds, not to higher yourself, but as inspiration and encouragement for others, for the joy of those able to have joy seeing, hearing and doing about good deeds. Invite people near and far, on the street, others next, to help with and join you giving.)
A tip in reagard of organised monasteries:
Modern or western tendence is make things productive and efficient. That can of course led whole communities astray and if eager people manage places, it can be a joy-killer and develope things like "If you are interested in offering a meal, please submit a donation form or contact the monastery". Aside of the good hint to seek for best empathy and good-will, like understandig, one should not assume that management, monks, single monk is one. Sometimes it's good to seek direct ways to a monk and go around caretakers and managers, who of course might have best intentions. Small places, humble places, places who do not put demants at first place but openly receive and let people best do their merits and can take imperfectness are often more joy and of more fruits. That does again not mean that it is wise to be not very responsible with your freedom for you benefit.
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant to use for commercial purposes or other wordily gains, but intent for liberation: so to share without bounds to anything else)


text:
Anapanasati in Pali script
Does anyone know how Anapanasati is written in Pali script? I failed to find a dictionary online that could give the correct script form.
Thanks!

Do you mean with correct diacritics?  Pali doesn't have it's own script.  It was written down in whatever alphabet happened to be available.

The Anapanasati Sutta in Pali is here: https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn118
It appears there is no Pali script, per the comment made to the question:

Emperor Ashoka erected a number of pillars with his edicts in at least
  three regional Prakrit languages in Brahmi script, all of which
  are quite similar to Pali. Historically, the first written record of
  the Pali canon is believed to have been composed in Sri Lanka, based
  on a prior oral tradition. As per the Mahavamsa (the chronicle of Sri
  Lanka), due to a major famine in the country Buddhist monks wrote down
  the Pali canon during the time of King Vattagamini in 100 BC. The
  transmission of written Pali has retained a universal system of
  alphabetic values, but has expressed those values in a stunning
  variety of actual scripts. In Sri Lanka, Pali texts were recorded in
  Sinhala script. Other local scripts, most prominently Khmer, Burmese,
  and in modern times Thai (since 1893), Devanāgarī and Mon script (Mon
  State, Burma) have been used to record Pali. Since the 19th century,
  Pali has also been written in the Roman script. An alternate scheme
  devised by Frans Velthuis, called the Velthuis scheme (see § Text in
  ASCII) allows for typing without diacritics using plain ASCII methods,
  but is arguably less readable than the standard IAST system, which
  uses diacritical marks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali#Writing

‘Pāli’ is not a language, it is the name of the mūla (source)
  Tripiṭaka text, as distinguished from its commentary, which is called
  Aṭṭhakathā - this distinction between Pāli and Aṭṭhakathā only makes
  sense in the commentarial tradition - it was not (and should not be)
  used as the name of the language.
The language of the Theravāda tripiṭaka is actually an artificially
  standardized (sanskritized) form of the original buddhist canon, which
  was written in the early Kharoṣṭhī script (only fragments of which
  survive today). Kharoṣṭhī was greatly unsuitable for writing sanskrit,
  and that is why sanskrit words written in Kharoṣṭhī appears like
  another language altogether (which is broadly called Middle-Indic, but
  is known by specific modern names like Pāli & Gāndhārī based on the
  script they are written in).
The oldest script in use was Kharoṣṭhī. The second-oldest script was
  Brāhmī. Sanskrit was written initially in Kharoṣṭhī (which did not
  distinguish between long and short vowels, conjunt consonants and
  simple consonants etc). So it became very difficult to read texts
  written in this script, even today western scholars are breaking their
  heads over whether Kharoṣṭhī texts are really in sanskrit or some new
  language (which in 1946 some have named as Gāndhāri, although such an
  independent language was never recognized at any point of time in BCE
  India). Anyways an improved script arose which was called Brāhmī
  (which did distinguish between short and long vowels) but still did
  not enable writing conjunct consonants properly (and scholars have
  named this language an early version of Pāli, which again was never
  known by that name in ancient India). With the passage of a few
  centuries, Brahmi was perfected for sanskrit, but the old ways of
  writing (which we call Gāndhāri & Pāli today) did not die out, they
  kept evolving into what became independent languages called the
  prākṛta languages (or prākrits)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-script-of-pali-language

The Kharosthi script, also spelled Kharoshthi or Kharoṣṭhī, is an
  ancient script used in ancient Gandhara and ancient India
  (primarily modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan) to write the Gandhari
  Prakrit and Sanskrit. It was popular in Central Asia as well. An
  abugida, it was in use from the middle of the 3rd century BCE until it
  died out in its homeland around the 3rd century CE. It was also in
  use in Bactria, the Kushan Empire, Sogdia and along the Silk Road,
  where there is some evidence it may have survived until the 7th
  century in the remote way stations of Khotan and Niya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharosthi

Oh, wow. Interesting, so there's no actual written text script for Pali. It's an oral language only, written in other languages' text.

thanks. it looks like that is the case. it was new news to me, also, regards

Use commentary to translate it:
Ānāpānassatikathā in http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/e0101n.mul8.xml
For the concentration meditation parts (first 4 parts form 16 parts):

Herein a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree,
  or to a bodily seclusion building — sits down folding his legs
  crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore
  [lit: breathes at nose tip]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful
  he breathes out.

"When he breathing in long, he contemplates 'I breathing in long';
  Or when he breathing out long, he contemplates 'I breathing out
  long'.
When he breathing in short, he contemplates 'I breathing in short';
  Or when he breathing out short, he contemplates 'I breathing out
  short'.
He trains himself 'I am breathing in and sensitively contemplating
  the entire breath in'. Or he trains himself 'I am breathing out and
  sensitively contemplating the entire breath out'.
He trains himself 'I am breathing gentle breath in'. Or he trains
  himself 'I am breathing gentle breath in'.

cr. http://tipitaka.wikia.com


text:
Sources on the Consequences of insulting
I recently encounted a situation where some comic fans in my country gathered up and had a Comic Con and it was worth their effort on making their own costumes. They have spend a lot of their time and dedication to represent their fictional characters.
After the event was over I saw certain low minded individuals have used certain pictures of the cosplayers and have insulted them in vrry bad ways (memes and some relate to nudity) and it went viral. Some of those cosplayers were pretty depressed after that and all. And the other organizers and them defended them and now it has gone viral all over the world and everyone else is supporting.
This is the scenario I encountered. My question is what are the karmic and other type of consequences of insulting a person's character according to the Pali Canon? Can I have references to them?
-Metta

I think the most famous sutta is Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2).

Akila, as for the possible reason of insulting:

"There is the case where a woman or man is envious. He/she envies, begrudges, & broods about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, & veneration. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is not influential wherever reborn. This is the way leading to not being influential: to be envious, to envy, begrudge, & brood about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, & veneration.
"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not envious. He/she does not envy, begrudge, or brood about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, or veneration. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, he/she is influential wherever reborn. This is the way leading to being influential: not to be envious; not to envy, begrudge, or brood about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, or veneration.
Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta: The Shorter Analysis of Action

As for the insulting itself, the ill-will harm, not with words and signs, such may the reason why people are often harmed, most ugly, the outsiders in groups and sociaty.
It's good to be reminded mainly to simply avoid such things by one self and good to remind that being insulted has having insulted as cause, when, and where ever it was, to do not fall in certain finily judgement, seeing being hurting each other. That's their ways they seek and think on Comics, what then attracting people by their fighting and insulting each others, do attract Comic fans.
One liking to watch and be joyful entertained by watching fighting, insulting, stories of winning and game, will be part of the movie which is in so far different, that the current hero is ever changing, does not stay with oneself. Watching shows, movies, such parades and Events... it all forces either greed, aversion, delusion grow in one.
Therefore the abstaining from entertainment and shows is praised by the wise and all Arahats and those following them did, do and will do likewise, Akila.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant to be used for commercial purpose or other wordily gains but intended for Nibbana: so to be given without bounds to things like that)


text:
Sanskrit term for a "Buddhist"
What is the Sanskrit term for a person who is a follower of the Buddha, i.e. a "Buddhist"?
Things I tried: I searched online but couldn't find anything. I looked in the only Sanskrit I have access to, which is The Student's Sanskrit English Dictionary by Vaman Shivram Apte. It has a term in it, but the Devanagari is so small, I can't make out the letters. It looks like the term is "buddhupasaka" or "buddhupasakra", and it is defined as "a worshipper of Buddha".

The Sanskrit term for Buddhist is bauddha.
This derivation is known as a "secondary derivation" (taddhita-pratyaya). An -a suffix is added, and the initial vowel is strengthened. It has the general sense of "of or relating to", and here the specific nuance of "one who follows the Buddha". Compare the more familiar word Jaina, which is the name for a follower of the "Jina", i.e. Mahavira. The word brāhmaṇa is derived from brahman via the same process.

Great to get know that pattern. Question, is that how ever compareable with "-ist", since a "-ist" is merely one who holds a "common" view of a gathering, then a follower or kindship. Is there a similare notion for "-ist". To give a sample: Australian - Australianist, Human - Humanist . Maybe good to properly point out that Buddhist is a unknown new invention in the tradition of the Noble Ones.

@SamanaJohann There's a definition of '-ist' here. 1) One who performs an action (e.g. motorist, or soloist). 2) One who practices in a specific field (e.g. physicist, or typist). 3) One who advocates a doctrine (e.g. socialist), or an adjective referring to that doctrine.

I'm not a Sanskrit scholar but a quick dictionary search gives the following:
bhikṣu - a beggar/wanderer
śramaṇa - a spiritual seeker
pravrājita - the one gone forth
anusārī - follower
The problem is, back in Buddha's times there were hundreds of different sects, and every seeker either went from one sect to another and assembled their own dharma from the elements available on the spiritual market - or picked one teacher to follow. In the first case they were simply called a bhikshu or shramana, and in the second case they were called a follower of such and such teacher (e.g. of Shramana Gautama, "sramanagautamanusari").
So the closest to "Buddhist" would probably be "buddha-pravrājita" or "buddha-anusārī"

The term Dharmānusārin would mean "one who follows in the Dharma" in Sanskrit. Please see the definition in this dictionary entry.
The term Śraddhānusārin would mean "one who follows in faith" in Sanskrit. Please see the definition in this dictionary entry.
The words Dharma and Śraddhā can be merged with anusārin according to sandhi rules.
On this page, from S.N. Goenka's Keynote address at the International Bauddha Mahotsav (Buddhist Conference), at Sarnath, India in 1998:

If I had been aware, much earlier, that this conference was named as
  'Bauddha Mahotsav', then I would have suggested that a more
  appropriate name would be 'Buddha Mahotsav', or 'Dhamma Mahotsav', or
  even 'Tiratana Mahotsav'. This is because in the entire ancient
  literature of the Buddha's teachings, commentaries and
  sub-commentaries, amongst a total of 59,150 pages containing 9,285,755
  words, the word 'Bauddha' is very conspicuously absent. The Buddha
  never taught 'Buddhism' or 'Bauddh Dharma'. He never taught a
  religion, nor did he convert anyone to an organized religion. He
  taught Dhamma (Dharma) - the universal laws of nature - and inspired
  people to follow Dhamma.
Those who followed the teachings of the Buddha were never called
  'Bauddh' (Buddhist) during the time of the Buddha, and even till about
  500 years later. Throughout this huge literature, we find only the
  following words referring to those practicing the Buddha's teachings:
  Dhammi (Dharmi), Dhammiko (Dharmika), Dhammattho (Dharmastha),
  Dhammacari (Dharmacari), Dhammavihari (Dharmavihari), Dhammanusari
  (Dharmanusari).
We don't know when, where, by whom and why the use of the word
  'Bauddh' first began, and so also the use of the words 'Buddhism' and
  'Buddhist'. When we say that the teachings of the Buddha are 'Bauddh
  Dharama' (or Buddhism), and say his followers are Bauddh (or
  Buddhists), obviously it means that the teachings are meant only for
  people claiming to be 'Bauddha' or 'Buddhists'. Whereas the Buddha
  declared so emphatically that Dhamma is infinite - "appamano dhammo".
When the teachings are called Buddhist, or ‘Bauddh Dharma' or
  Buddhism, then most of the suffering people of the world will get
  frightened thinking that they are being converted from one particular
  religion to another, and be deprived of the universal teaching. But
  when Buddha's teachings are given under the original, true
  nomenclature of ‘Dhamma', and not any other terminology, then people
  are reassured of the basic fact that the Buddha's teachings are not
  just meant for any one religion. So people from any background will
  have no hesitation accepting his teachings.
Our research at Igatpuri has shown us that till about 500 years after
  Buddha, the word ‘Bauddh' was not found in any ancient spiritual
  literature of India-the literature in the Buddha tradition, Mahavir
  tradition, or Vedic tradition. The distinguished scholars assembled
  here may help us make a proper research as to when usage of this word
  ‘Bauddh' began.
It is most important to remember that the Buddha's teachings are not
  meant to be limited to any particular sect. His teachings are
  universal. And if we see the Enlightened One's teachings in proper
  perspective, it is clear that the original teachings of the Buddha are
  totally universal and non-sectarian.

In pāli canon, follower is sāvaka (su+ika=follower to hear dhamma from satthā [saha+attha=philosopher who has philosophy in his mind]).
Sāvaka, in pāli, is śrāvaka, in sanskrit.
This word use in every canon. You can put "buddha" word in font of "sāvaka", buddha-sāvaka, to specify just a buddhist person.
https://www.buddhistdoor.org/tc/dictionary/details/savaka
P.s. use this tool to convert between thai and roman of the first reference link.


text:
How does the craving or clinging to existence survive after death?
As per my understanding when a person dies his aggregates dissolve(his self dissolves) and if the dead person has any cravings,clinging left for the existence then he is reborn(aggregates reassemble).
Craving or clinging is personal. A person craves or clings. But death causes the dissolution of self. So I am unable to understand who clings or craves after death?
If we the take the simile of lamp then my question would be: who passes the flame from one lamp to another ?
My questions are :how does the clinging or craving remain when there is no person,immediately after death, to crave or cling?
What remains after the dissolution of five aggregates ?

@beginner says some self remains after death. Can someone confirm or deny this ? If you let some self to remain after death then are not you claiming presence of absolute self?

I guess I have found an answer in Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence(page 394).
It mainly states that Upadana and Karma lives on after death, due to which another being is reproduced.However the exact mechanism is not known.

The cleaving to existing objects is upadana. There are two properties
inherent in all sentient beings, except the rahats :—first, upadana,
and secondly, karma, literally action, the aggregate result of all
previous acts, in unbroken succession, from the commencement of
existence, in the births innumerable that have been received in past
ages. At death, the five khandas are dissolved. As they no longer
exist in combination, they can maintain no reciprocity of influence ;
their mutuality of operation has ceased for ever. But the ^upadana
still exists, and the karma lives on. The cleaving to existing
  objects, or the breaking up of the khandas, by some unexplained
instrumentality, produces another being. The upadana cannot but exert
  its power ; another being must necessarily be produced. It is as
  impossible, under ordinary circumstances, to separate reproduction
  from upadana, as it would be to separate heat from fire or solidity
  from the rock ; the one follows as naturally as the other, and all are
  equally mysterious in the manner of their operation. As it is the
  grand tenet of Budhism, that all existence is an evil, it thus becomes
  consistent with right reason to seek the destruction of upadana, which
  alone can secure the reception of nirwana, or the cessation of being.

Let me attempt to tackle this one with one train of thought ...
Let's say for a moment that multiple universe theory is correct ([Multiple Universe theory])1. Every potential choice or alternative that could possibly happen exists if we initiate it to exist. That is to say the little world we create by our interactions and relationships and conduct determines which of the universes we will encounter. It's karma.
This is actually how "karma" works. It is the resultant chain of events we set in place. It actually affects things on a quantum probability level. We have proven with the double slit experiment that our perceptions actually determine the makeup of matter. ([Double slit experiment])2 This seems just a curious point with physicists, but for those of us trying to find the link between consciousness and the real world it is a lifeline of understanding. That is precisely how we navigate ourselves thru the multiple universes of potential around us. But it has repercussions.
Once we have perceived something and "selected a path" there is resultant karma. Continuing effects. We have actually determined something and caused something. So what happens to all of those things you caused, all those probabilities that we determined, if you pass away? Now we come to rebirth.
Ideally our consciousness would simply pass back to the ether it came from. The all of the universe. Pure awareness. But that's assuming it meets the "neutrality" of the rest of all so it can merge. Those choices and resultant probabilities color the consciousness. It's not neutral. Maybe it's vibration. Maybe it's a flavor. I dont know. But it's different from the rest and cannot just merge. It needs another vessel to dissipate. At this point I believe whatever the quality is (vibration, temperature, flavor whatever) flees to a like-quality in another vessel. But thats beyond the scope here. There is current research showing that these qualities are actually stored in the micro-tubules of brain cells. ([Micro-tubule research])3
Of course if karma is inevitable by any thought or action then there is always rebirth under this thought - until we bring in meditation. I believe meditation is what can clear these things. Through meditation and simplifying ones' life and being happy and walking the median path we keep our karmic disturbance or just karmic activity closer to neutral and hopefully we can be clear enough to stop rebirth.
Now I will stand by and let everyone tear me apart.

I guess multi-universe theory says that all choices are realized independent of us or consciousness. There is no karma involved because karma requires mind. Universe according to science can exist without mind.

thats not what I am saying. multiple universe theory says all possible alternatives exist around us and it is up to our perceptions to decide which ones. that involves the mind. it can be there without our perceptions ... just as nirbana is there without anyone on the path.

it is like camp fire becomes a grass fire.
Grass fire becomes a bush fire.
Bush fire becomes a house fire.
Fire continues due to fuel.

Lets say grass fire dies... but grass fire has little bit of fuel left in it and it causes bush fire. My question is when the grass fire dies... how come always some fuel is left in it? Doesn't death means total extinction of fire? If death doesn't mean total extinction of fire then how is Nirvana possible? Clearly there is a 'will' involved which can stop the fire from spreading. When a person dies where does that will go ? Because after death all the skhandas are dissolved.

By the time grass fire dies it already started the bush fire. We are not living in this world in isolation. We all change together.

:-) That is interesting. It means that a person takes rebirth moment before his death.

It is like you move from first Jhana to second Jhana. It happens gradually.This is a difficult subject. Do not believe everything I say.-) Abhidhamma deals with this subject.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

At the time of death the body dissolves.
After the dissolution of body, self without body remains.
Why this self remains?
Because of volitional activities.
Whenever a volitional activity is made, self appears.
It is at that time that this self, by volitional activities, sustains and destines himself to a future rebirth.

"If we the take the simile of lamp then my question would be: who
  passes the flame from one lamp to another ?"

To a liberated mind, the answer is nobody.
To a liberated mind, there is nothing to pass.
There is no flame, no lamp.
They are mere fabrications ... not truths ... leading to fabricated things ... lies, that seem like truths. Destined to cessation. Leading to impermanence. Leading to craving and clinging on these impermanent lies that seem like truths, thus seeding seeds for future suffering when they cease.
Knowing this truth, a liberated mind does not fabricate fabricated things ... his volitional activities cease ... his kamma exhaust ... self does not appear, thus no rebirth happens.
To a not yet liberated mind, the answer is "self".
To a not yet liberated mind, there is something to pass.
There is a flame and a lamp. There must be! There cannot be no flame and no lamp! There must be something! This is how he ponders to himself.
Why is this so?
It's because for him the truth is yet to be known.
Then, a not yet liberated mind, reading what I already wrote, thinks to himself that the answer is nobody, thus comes to the conclusion that the answer is nobody and thus that there is nothing to pass ... no flame, no lamp.
There is no flame and no lamp he thinks to himself. There is nothing! There is no flame and no lamp! This is how he ponders to himself.
Then, at the time of his death, not knowing the cause of suffering, by volitional activities, he fabricates a flame of nothingness and a lamp of nothingness and destines himself to a future rebirth.
Why is this so?
It's because for him the truth is yet to be known.
EDIT:
In your comments you said that self dissolves after death in such a way that after death self does not remain. This cannot be, because the self in order to dissolve completely, needs to know the true nature of things. Without knowing the true nature of things, self cannot completely dissolve, thus it remains. This is key in understanding that after death some self remains and it does not completely dissolve.
The true nature of things is that there is no self. Thus, every self that exists (with or without body), is constantly and naturally returning to this true nature which is "no self", but instead of entering this natural state of "no self", the self arises again and again and again because of ignorance (not knowing the true nature of things). Or I can say it this way: every self, with the death of his physical body, is naturally returning to the true nature of things, which is Nibanna, but because of ignorance, the self raises into Samsara in a new body. In not liberated beings still existing in Samsara this ignorance  exists due to kamma, on the other hand, in liberated beings still existing in Samsara, ignorance does not exist due to kamma but due to compassion. In reality, the ignorance in liberated beings still existing in Samsara does not exist any more, but they choose to be a part of this ignorance (Samsara) out of compassion for other beings.
Here is what happens after death ... or in the process of dying.
Self STARTS to gradually dissolve towards Nibanna ... it does not dissolve in an instant ... it just starts gradually dissolving ... firstly, it gets stripped from his body/form ... then it gets stripped from other things like memories, concepts, ideas, etc. ... it gets stripped from skandhas ... So after death, the self (the skhandhas) is gradually dissolving/stripping, but IT CAN NEVER COMPLETELY DISSOLVE (and thus enter Nibanna) IF IT DOES NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF THINGS (lets call this The Truth). The self can completely dissolve after death (enter Nibanna) only if The Truth is known to that self.
By not knowing The Truth, when after death the self is dissolving, volitional activities are made by the self (samkhara) which are influenced by kamma, and these same volitional activities stop the gradual dissolving process of the self towards Nibanna and start rebuilding the self, thus sprinkling the self in a new existence into Samsara either by birth, egg or apparition .... with or without body/form/senses, etc. ... it gets rebuilt into skandhas depending on his samkhara which depends on his kamma. The new existence of the rebuilt self is determined by the volitional activities of the self which are conditioned by kamma which is conditioned by the degree of not knowing The Truth.
This is the answer to your question about how does the craving survive after death.
To summarize: Craving survives after death because the self does not become completely extinct after death due to the fact that the self does not know The Truth. Self cannot become completely extinct/dissolved after death if he does not know The Truth. If self does not know The Truth, he will "fight" against his extinction/dissolution with craving, thus he will not reach extinction/dissolution (Nibanna) but will remain after death (stripped off from his skandhas) and be reborn again (Samsara) with newly fabricated skandhas arising because of craving.
In fact, death is not really death .... Just the self is stripped of some of his fabricated fabrications (skandhas) and this stripping of fabrications we call »death«. Then, because of his ignorance (not knowing The Truth), the self fabricates new fabrications (new skandhas) and this we call »birth«. In reality, the self never dies nor is born. »Death« and »birth« are just concepts (not truths) ... are labels that we give to a self when the self fabricates his body (skandhas) or his fabricated body gets destroyed (destroying of skandhas). Self is constantly in the cycle of death and rebirth, but we can't see it directly because of our kamma.
The claim that after death self dissolves/extincts is not correct, because for the complete extinction of the self, The Truth must be known to that self. The self cannot extinguish/dissolve if The Truth is not known to him ... or in other words: the self cannot extinguish/dissolve if ignorance is not removed by that self. This is what the Buddha taught.
Thus, the self remains after death and is reborn again. Only in a being who knows The Truth (who removed his ignorance) the self becomes completely extinct/dissolved after death, thus enters Nibanna and rebirth stops.
Upadana means fuel. This fuel is the self after death, stripped from his body/form, memories, ideas, etc. ... thus stripped from its skandhas. Kamma is the remaining fabricated fabrications of this stripped self. Not knowing The Truth, this self fabricates new fabrications based on his remaining kamma and in this way adds new kamma to his already remaining kamma. Fabricated fabrications can be body/form, memories, ideas, concepts, etc. ... thus adding of new kamma and rebuilding of skandhas.
In non liberated beings, after death and/or during life, because of avijja (ignorance), upadana is present. Upadana gives fuel to samkhara. Samkhara then rebuilds the self based on kamma and thus adds new kamma to his kamma. This self is not free from kamma. His kamma produces fruits, which due to the real nature of things (The Truth) always end in suffering, and he cannot stop this process due to ignorance.
In liberated beings who after reaching Nirvana decide to stay in their physical bodies, upadana is present because of compassion, not because of ignorance. Upadana gives fuel to samkhara. Samkhara then rebuilds the self based on kamma, but in reality this self is free from kamma. His kamma produces fruits only because he chooses to do so, out of compassion for other beings. He is free from suffering produced by fruits of his kamma because he knows the real nature of things (The Truth). In liberated beings, after death, there is no avijja (ignorance), thus upadana can exhausts completely. Without upadana there is no fuel for samkhara. Without samkhara, no self can be rebuilt, thus all the remaining kamma extinguishes and Nibanna is entered.
I think you need to study the second link in the Pratītyasamutpāda: samkhara. Also study tanha, upadana and bhava which are the main modus operandi of samkhara. Meditate and see with your own experience samkhara, tanha, upadana and bhava in action. Then everything will be clear.
You are very close. Do not get discouraged by my words. Do not believe my words. Meditate and verify it yourself with your own experience. Let these words be your guide in seeing The Truth in its entire beauty.
Metta to you and everybody

There are many questions and suggestions for improvement of this answer:1.Please provide links wherever possible. 2. You say after death self without body remains...I say after death self takes rebirth with or without body.3.you say rebirth occurs because Truth is not known... I say rebirth occurs because of craving or lust ...

Maybe I'll find some links/quotes and provide them. I'm sure the same can be found in the suttas. What do you think why do craving and/or lust occur?

Craving or lust occurs because true nature of things are not known. You said "Then, at the time of his death, not knowing the cause of suffering, by volitional activities, he fabricates a flame of nothingness and a lamp of nothingness and destines himself to a future rebirth."

Yes. And what is the true nature of things?

True nature is that there is no self to cling to... neither in the past nor in future is there any self which can be called as "I am" or as my identity.  I arise by the cooperation of khandas or five aggregates. I will dissolve. But if there is craving I will reassemble or reborn. Now my question was how does the craving survive after death? You say "After the dissolution of body, self without body remains." which is wrong. After dissolution of self, Upadana and karma continue to exist and cause the rebirth by reassembly of aggregates. (I may be wrong... but I am a beginner too.)

Aha yes. I think I understand what you mean. So after dissolution of the body, self also dissolves ... Is that what you mean? So what remains after the dissolution of the body if self does not remain?

Upadana and karma exists after the death .

I think I know what you need to hear. Read my edited answer. Hope it helps.


text:
Buddhism in Kerala, India?
I want to know if Buddhism was practised in Kerala, India around 500CE. When did it lose popularity and why?

No it was not practiced. In Kerala very minor group of people follow the Buddhism. Buddhism probably flourished for 200 years (650-850) in Kerala. The Paliyam Copper Plate of the Ay King, Varaguna (885-925 AD) shows that the Buddhists benefited from royal patronage in the 10th century.
Hope this helps..

Thank you. I am told the knowledge of Kalaripayattu was taken by Buddhist monks from Kerala to the Far East where it was taught as the martial arts we now know as Kung Fu and Karate. So, I would imagine, there was quite a bit of flow of Buddhists from Kerala to the Far East. Am I right in thinking so?

Yes the Buddhists migrated from Kerala to East India and settled there. And still to this date Buddhism in East India is considered to be the source of learning martial arts.

A similar question was asked here on History Stack Exchange.
There also appears to be some info here and here.


text:
Why isn't Buddhānussati more popular in the West?
From what I understand in the suttas, unless you renounce the household life and desire almost entirely, chances are you won't eliminate the necessary fetters to achieve nibbana in this life. For someone who has to take care of a family, work a job, and be social, stream-entry seems like a more realistic goal, which is achieved through faith and virtue (AN 10.92, SN 55.7). Despite the importance of these topics, I can hardly find any instruction on cultivating faith and virtue outside of the suttas and Visuddhagga. Is interest in the devotional practices really so scarce?

The Kitagiri Sutta says:

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

I think the conviction follower and faith follower refers to the same thing.
The faith follower also has faith and conviction in the impermanence of various phenomena, according to SN25:

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

Faith in the Buddha and the teachings would lead one towards stream entry. But it's insufficient by itself.
According to the Vera Sutta (AN10.92), to achieve stream-entry, one needs to still the five forms of fear and animosity, attain the four factors of stream entry and rightly see & rightly ferret out through discernment, the noble method.
The five forms of fear and animosity are caused by:

Taking a life
Stealing
Illicit sex
Telling untruth
Heedlessness through intoxicating substances

The five precepts are training rules undertaken to abstain from the above five.
The four factors of stream entry are:

Verified confidence in the Buddha
Verified confidence in the Dhamma
Verified confidence in the Sangha (the 8 types of individuals)
Has virtues appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration.

To elaborate on the fourth factor of stream entry, we find some details in the Thana Sutta:

And then there is the case where one individual, through living with
  another, knows this: 'For a long time this person has been untorn,
  unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered in his actions. He has been
  consistent in his actions. He has practiced consistently with regard
  to the precepts. He is a virtuous, principled person, not an
  unprincipled one.'

The fourth factor of stream entry is basically to be virtuous and principled, which includes keeping the five precepts. Virtue (sila) is defined by Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood.
In the Nandiya Sutta, there is further elaboration:

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified
  confidence in the Dhamma... verified confidence in the Sangha...
  virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken,
  unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished,
  leading to concentration. Not content with those virtues pleasing to
  the noble ones, he exerts himself further in solitude by day or
  seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one
  who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has rapture, the body becomes
  serene. When the body is serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure,
  the mind becomes centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become
  manifest. When phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who
  dwells heedfully.

This then leads to the "noble method".
The noble method mentioned here is understanding dependent origination and its relationship to the ending of suffering.
Interestingly, in the Gihi Sutta, the householder only needs to keep the five precepts and fulfill the four factors for stream entry (known in this sutta as the four pleasant mental abidings) in order to attain stream entry. The last "noble method" is not mentioned.
Also this study guide on stream entry and this commentary might be interesting to you.

SN 25 states: "Monks, form is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable...One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower"...

The five forms of fear and animosity are also the first five precepts. Refraining from breaking those precepts is how one is virtuous, yes?

Updated answer in response to comments.

I doubt faith, virtue & devotion to the Buddha (alone) can bring stream-entry because these suttas include penetration of lokuttara dhamma as one of the four factors of stream-entry, namely:

He is endowed with verified (avecca) confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'
avecca absol. understanding, having penetrated (see aveti)

This surely must mean enlightenment to the noble truths & liberating anatta, which ends the fetters of self-belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) & doubt (vicikicchā). It also appears to negate beliefs in reincarnation as factors of stream-entry because the dhamma to be verified is to be seen here & now, etc.

"I doubt faith, virtue & devotion to the Buddha (alone) can bring stream-entry" I didn't say that it could. Considering the importance of (verified) faith and virtue in making progress, I was simply wondering why those topics weren't discussed more.

Genuine buddhist practises produces very tangible benefits to the recipient very rapidly. You don't need any belief. You can feel incredibly and undeniably 'great' and 'high' from meditation done correctly. But the teaching has got a little fuzzy and diluted over time from when it first emerged. Most people in the West (and the East even) get very little genuine benefit because the skill in teaching has decreased
Quite aside from spiritual devotion as an ends-unto-itself, if people got simple benefit from buddhism they would flock to it.
I suspect that the quality of meditation teaching has simply declined over time to the point that buddhism in the west is more or less an intellectual choice.
In it's time it would have been producing very powerful and real benefits to ordinary people very rapidly which disseminated it. It was aimed at lay-people. Something like Christianity 'rode on the back of' the Roman Empire's Emporers and the 'love and tolerance' mantra probably helped their culture advance. Buddhism spread because it was very simple and worked. I don't think many people honestly speaking get much benefit out of meditation as it is practised in modern times.

Good points. The suttas and commentaries consistently mention faith (or verified confidence) and virtue (or good conduct) as prerequisites for progress, and yet much modern meditation instruction reduces practice to basic relaxation techniques. This is what I'm concerned about. Meditation can only be a momentary fix if the mind is still riddled with defilements (kilesa).


text:
Is there a time difference between death and re-birth?
What is the Theravada position to following question?
Is there a time difference between death and re-birth?
Some further reading:
Are my future parents already here?
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21961&hilit

In abhidhamma, when death consciousness vanished, then rebirth consciousness arise, immediately.

Some Theravada teachers say there can be an interim period but the commonly accepted belief is that there's no interim. Because the death marks the last arising of the five aggregates in this life but experiencing does not end there if you are not an Arahant. Another five aggregates should arise somewhere else immediately after that. Unless the next birth is in the immaterial realm, the next experience should have physical materiality as a part of it. In other words Rupa +(Vedana+Sanna+Sankhara+Vinnana). Thus it is Mentality+Materiality or Namarupa. Which means it's either  a new life or the mind process is still holding on to a subtle form of the old body. Either way, the mind cannot exist without a body except in the immaterial realm.
In all the reported cases of beings floating around, they could see, hear things. Which means there's materiality associated with the mind process.

Here's an answer from the Theravada tradition by Ven. Narada Mahathera (which appears to come from his book "The Buddha and His Teachings"):

The continuity of the flux, at death, is unbroken in point of time,
  and there is no breach in the stream of consciousness.
Rebirth takes place immediately, irrespective of the place of birth,
  just as an electromagnetic wave, projected into space, is immediately
  reproduced in a receiving radio set. Rebirth of the mental flux is
  also instantaneous and leaves no room whatever for any intermediate
  state (antarabhava). Pure Buddhism does not support the belief that a
  spirit of the deceased person takes lodgement in some temporary state
  until it finds a suitable place for its "reincarnation."

In some other Buddhist schools, there is an intermediate state called bardo or antarabhāva.

There is a misunderstanding of what is called rebirth here. The other Buddhist schools other than what your Ven N. M. said "Pure Buddhism" never said the intermediate state is a state called that a spirit of the deceased person, it's still the mental flux, or consciousness continuum. Consciousness continuum never stop, whether your body died or not, but just it's no longer with a physical/material expression that can be seen with the naked-eyes.

I'm sorry if you found the term "Pure Buddhism" offensive. I will drop that from the quote.

I'm not offended at all, you should keep what the Ven N. M. said in his original words, especially you are directly quoting from his book. In modern society we should avoid abridging other's words to fit in, that's honesty treasured in journalism - public media.

I would answer 'yes', even though 'death' ('marana') for the puthujjana is generally very quickly followed by another 'rebirth' ('jati').
For example, your unexpectedly wife divorces you. You die from the self-identity (sakkaya ditthi) of a 'husband' and are soon after reborn, in hell (suffering), with self-identity as a 'divorcee' or 'alone'.
This new birth (jati) takes some time, even if it is only the time of one or two thoughts.
You learn: "My wife has left me", which takes about 3 seconds to think. Then you think: "I am now alone", which takes two seconds to think. Therefore, rebirth takes around 2 to 5 seconds, or more, depending on the complexity.
For example, some people remain in denial for a long time when there is loss so rebirth may take a longer time for them, as explained in the Piyajatika Sutta:

Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little
  son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying out, "Where have you gone, my only little
  child? Where have you gone, my only little child?"
The Blessed One said to him, "Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady in his own mind. There is an aberration in
  your faculties."
That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is
  dear, come springing from one who is dear.