text:
If a Buddhist believes lay life is not ideal for the practice, why does he or she continue?
Usually in the evening, when I am about to retire, I commit myself to finding and entering into a residential Sangha permanently.
When morning rolls in, I fall back into my usual patterns like work, hobbies, social, etc.
Usually when I suffer, this emboldens me to seek the monastic life but usually doesn't last very long.
When I think about it, I feel like the monastic life is the only way to proceed yet I don't follow through with it.
Speaking from a general point-of-view, if a Buddhist knows that the lay life is not ideal, what barriers (overt and inconspicuous) are preventing them from seeking and living the monastical life. How can they be overcomed ?

Could you re-state the question? It sounds like you're asking us to tell you why you persist with an apparent contradiction in your life. But surely you're the best/only person who can answer that particular question?

@tkp Good call. Have reworded the title and ending to generalize.

There are so many good answers, it's difficult to pick the correct one.

Why does he or she continue?

Because of clinging. Clinging to family, clinging to lovers, clinging to property, clinging to comforts, clinging to all kinds of sensual pleasures which the monastic life wouldn't have.

How to overcome it?

You have to develop Nekkhamma Sankappa of the noble 8 fold path.  Take a timeout  to think about what you've really been trying to do every day, your whole life. Being yourself subjected to birth, sickness, aging, death etc. which cause suffering, you are trying to attain satisfaction by chasing after other things which are also subjected to birth, sickness, aging and death.  This is called the ignoble search. Think of the absurdness of doing the same thing over and over again, when it can never give you the intended outcome. Pay careful and wise attention to the signs of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta in life. What made prince Siddhartha decide to leave the lay life? Seeing an old man, a sick man, a dead body, a hermit. We see the same things too. But we rarely pay wise attention. We rarely think that we are also subjected to the same misery. Even if we do think that, it would just be a passing thought. It wouldn't be strong enough to break the bonds of lay life. It wasn't a passing thought for prince Siddhartha. He thought about what he saw even after returning to the palace. He cultivated his mind with Nekkhamma thoughts, which eventually became strong enough to make him decide to leave the lay life to do the noble search. i.e. to seek the unborn, unaging and the deathless element.

Can you please explain why you removed 'absurd' from the title ? The word seems to capture the essense of modernity quite well especially juxtaposed to 20th century western literature.

I thought the word is too strong and gives the notion that Buddhism is against lay life, when you put it that way.

Would you agree with @soulsings answer that the Buddha did not favor the monastical life over lay life ?

No I don't! The Buddha praised the monastic life over lay life and outlined it's benefits. I don't quite remember which sutta. It's just that everyone does not have the mental fortitude to lead a monastic life.

Your use of the word "absurd" in the original title makes me wonder whether you've been exposed to 20th century nihilist philosophy.
"Absurd" comes from a Latin word meaning "dissonant" and it refers to the dissonance between man's expectations and his actual experience.
That's kind of cool (it's maybe the second noble truth) but it's still a description of the problem, and not of the solution.
Note that the Buddha spoke again both extremes: eternalism and nihilism.
I could try to suggest two remedies:

Learn more about life in a Sangha -- for example you could read http://plumvillage.org/category/blog/ without leaving your home
Learn more about lay Buddhist life -- for example, the book described in this answer could be interesting

There are also some half-way measures, e.g. lay people visit or work with Sanghas.

Speaking from a general point-of-view, if a Buddhist knows that the lay life is not ideal, what barriers (overt and inconspicuous) are preventing them from seeking and living the monastical life.
This isn't quite what you were asking, but one answer is that to be accepted they might require you to be in reasonable health, and not too old (e.g. less than 50)
Also your basic question seems to be "why don't I act rationally?" Well that's a good question but maybe it's normal for human to have habits, including bad habits, and developing discipline and rationality and insight etc. is non-trivial.
There's a (non-Buddhist) poem addressed to Siva (named "Ramanatha" in the poem),

If this is my body
  Would it not follow my will?
  If this is your body
  Would it not follow your will?
  Obviously, it is neither your body
  Nor mine:
  It is the fickle body
  Of the burning world you made,
  Ramanatha.

How can they be overcomed ?
There's a little voice in my head that replies, "First you must have that intention (to overcome them)."
I suppose a canonical answer is the "noble eightfold way" (see for example here and here): that's the path to liberation. You start with Right View (seeing your situation properly), then Right Intent (wanting to act appropriately for that situation), etc.
And even a little is better than none IMO: doing away with ill-will, intending to be harmless, etc.
You might like to read The Intention of Renunciation since that's what you seem to be asking about,

The Buddha does not demand that everyone leave the household life for the monastery or ask his followers to discard all sense enjoyments on the spot.

Maybe you don't want to lose happiness (by losing work, hobbies, social, etc.). Maybe a key then is to replace these forms of happiness, not with nothing but with other causes of happiness: e.g. equanimity (freedom), good will, etc.

I've read "The Stranger", "The Wasteland", and a few other similar works though I'd say I was too young young when I read them to appreciate the ideas. I'm not sure I do understand "absurdity" or "modernity" fully but I do remember them from the student days.

I suppose "The Absurd" is often used in connection with Existentialism which is why I made that remark (it's been that long since I've seen the word "absurd" being used). A difference between Pascal and Existentialism might be that "God is Dead", therefore (according to "existentialism", if I've understood that) we choose who we are instead of the Church telling us who we are.

More importantly you're asking why you don't do what you want to? An earlier topic on this site was whether Buddhism believes in Free Will. When I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will I read that "will" is mostly used synonymously with "free will" (e.g. if it's not my "free will" then it's not "my will" at all), except in the context of addiction (e.g. people taking drugs whether or not they "want" to). A related article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will includes the statement, "Human agency ... may be ... a result of training unconscious habits beforehand."

@Sisyphus And that, i.e. "unconscious habits", has an I-think obvious tie-in to a perhaps-more-formally-Buddhist way of answering to your question: which is that people keep on doing it because that's their "karma". Maybe changing your karma would implies training/retraining so-called unconscious habits.

I'm glad you brought up the topic of addiction. Usually when we think of addiction, it's with respect to substance abuse, but I wonder if a consensus will be reached that the lay life is also an addiction. Dopamine and reward chemicals shape our behavior perhaps more than science has yet shown. There was a controversial NIH scientist (his name escapes me) who denounced the APA's DSM in favor of physical biological markers in the brain. I have a feeling Quantum Science will also some say in our behavior and free will. May be if I meditate long enough the answers will become apparent.

@Sisyphus People have noticed parallels between Buddhist "craving" and Western "addiction": Taṇhā - Relation to addiction (e.g. the Dalai Lama saying, craving fuels addiction).

Earlier I said May be if I meditate long enough the answers will become apparent. Books like The Tao of Physics suggest science is affirming the principles of Buddhism which is the context I meant it in.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Two reasons come to mind; one practical, the other metaphysical.
Practical
What you describe is no different from how we live our lives all the time.  We want things but don't want to do the work for them.

We want to lose weight, but don't want to exercise.
We want to learn a skill, but don't want to spend time practicing it.
We want happiness, but don't want the changes required to bring it
about.

I think this is the same phenomena. We want the fruits of Nirvana, but don't want to give up our attachments.
Also, there is something compelling about Samsara, otherwise it wouldn't be such a challenge to let it go. Besides, I think many people who superficially believe in Samsara do not believe it deep down.
How to overcome it?  Well, mindfulness of Samsara.  If you can really see this life as unsatisfactory, then the problem should solve itself.  However, the key is seeing, not intellectual assent.  We intellectually assent to many things that we don't really see.  Can you honestly encounter your experiences in every moment, reflect on them, really SEE Samsara?  That you can get some glimpses of Nirvana along the way can serve as a useful stick and carrot corrective.
Metaphysical
Many Buddhists believe in rebirth.  The quality of one's rebirth is commensurate to one's practice here.  Therefore, even if a lay life is not ideal, one may practice to ensure a more favorable rebirth wherein one can practice more rigorously and at some point down the line achieve Nirvana.
How to correct this?  Abandon believe in rebirth!  Of course that's easier said than done for those who have that worldview.

You don’t have to abandon belief in rebirth. In fact, believing in rebirth is right view. You just have to abandon the desire to be reborn in heaven or Brahma realms

"There is the case, great king, where a Tathagata appears in the
  world, worthy and rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma
  admirable in its beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its
  end. He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars and in its
  essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.
"A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains
  conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is
  confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It
  is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect,
  totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my
  hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the
  household life into homelessness?'
"So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small;
  leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair
  and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household
  life into homelessness.
"When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the
  monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in
  his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of
  mindfulness and alertness, and is content.
Samaññaphala Sutta (DN 2)

Also, this is what the Boddhisattva thought :

"Why wouldn't it have, Aggivessana? Before my Awakening, when I was
  still an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Household
  life is confining, a dusty path. Life gone forth is the open air. It
  isn't easy, living in a home, to practice the holy life totally
  perfect, totally pure, a polished shell. What if I, having shaved off
  my hair & beard and putting on the ochre robe, were to go forth from
  the household life into homelessness?'
"So at a later time, when I was still young, black-haired, endowed
  with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life, having shaved
  off my hair & beard — though my parents wished otherwise and were
  grieving with tears on their faces — I put on the ochre robe and went
  forth from the home life into homelessness.
Maha-Saccaka Sutta (MN 36)

This is to support Sankha Kulathantille's answer - which I think is reasonable and in line with the Dhamma.
Also, I think you should consider reading the Samaññaphala Sutta, if you haven't done so already.

This particular sentence in the first excerpt seems to standout in this context: He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars and in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.

When I think about it, I feel like the monastic life is the only way
  to proceed yet I don't follow through with it.

While the ideal monastic life is considered the swiftest route to Nibbana, don't overly romanticize the monastic life today. It depends on where you are. Many monastics in Asia perform a purely cultural role fulfilling funeral rites and other customary rituals, some have abandoned the quest for enlightenment and taken up nationalistic causes.
Likewise don't overly put down a household life as being impractical to the practice. If you are disciplined and dedicated enough you can practice at home, perhaps finding encouragement from other like minded friends, and with the guidance of an experienced and knowledgeable teacher. There were many householders who attained states of sotapatti, sakadagami and anagami and continued to remain householders even after.

Whether one is a lay practitioner or a monk, either way the key to progress is the daily practice. Either can meditate twice a day, do walking meditation, do karma work, do charity work, and raise their consciousness.
Maybe the idea that the monastery is better than lay life is a concept that may be true or not true. Listing the jobs in each place and the challenges each offers may give a better idea of the demands of a monk or lay person.
The Buddha did not give higher value to one over the other. Many lay person's attained enlightenment in Buddha's day.
Perhaps the real question is one that must be asked within where there are no words or concepts and wait for an inner response: What is my calling in life? What have I come here to do? Why have I come here? What can I do that will most fulfill that aim?
By allowing the beginner's mind, the nirvana consciousness to grow, these answers may appear when the time is ripe.

Really? The Buddha did not give higher value to one over the other? I might be over thinking this but do you mean that the Buddha valued a meditator directly and not compared to another person or concept of a person such as "monk" and "lay"?

please, can you clarify this: "The Buddha did not give higher value to one over the other."

I suspect that, for example, renunciation is said to be better than not, and that the monastic life is said to be more conducive to being able to do that.

The practice is more important than joining an order or practicing independently, whether monk or lay does not boost your chances to succeed. The practice of Buddhism does.

ChrisW, if one renounces the belief in the selfhood apart from Buddha mind, that certainly boosts your chances to succeed. Some people would fail as monks and succeed as lay people. Some people would fail as lay people and succeed as monks. Indifference to appearance and practice of the Middle Way appear to be the most significant factors in success.

User535875 what seems evident is that Buddha accepts all where they are, wherever that me be. It appears to me that monk or lay are not more valuable at face value, but only how a person uses his circumstances in life to advance toward awakening.


text:
Buddhism ideals in the West before the 20th century
Today, I received an email with a quote in the signature attributed to Blaise Pascal reading

All of human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.

A more accurate quote is,

tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne pas savoir demeurer en repos dans une chambre
All the unhappiness of men comes from only one thing, which is not knowing how to stay at rest (or 'remain peacefully') in a room.

Here is the whole passage in context (I translate),

When I put myself sometimes to considering the diverse agitations of
men and the dangers and trouble which they expose themselves to, in
the court, in war, from where are born so many troubles, passions,
endeavours that are hardy (or fool-hardy) and often bad, etc., I
discovered that all the unhappiness of man comes from just one cause,
which is not knowing how to stay peacefully in a room. A man who has
enough goods to live, if he knew how to live with pleasure in his
home, wouldn't leave it to go on the sea or to the seat of a place.
One buys such an expensive warrant for the army, only because one
finds it intolerable to not move from the town; and one looks for
conversations and the distraction of games only because one can't stay
at one's own home with pleasure.
But when I thought about it more closely and after finding the cause
of all our unhappiness, I wanted to discover the reason for that, I
found there is one very effective (reason), which consists in the
natural unhappiness of our feeble and mortal condition, and so
miserable, that nothing can console us, when we think of it closely.
Whatever condition one figures oneself to be in, if one assembles all
the goods which can belong to us, royalty is the most beautiful
position in the world, and nevertheless if one imagines oneself (in
that position), accompanied by all the satisfactions associated with
it. If it's without distraction, and if one lets oneself consider and
reflect on what is, that langorous happiness wouldn't sustain itself,
it necessarily falls among the sights which menace it, the revolts
which could happen, and finally the death and sickness which are
inevitable; such that, if it is without what one calls 'distractions'
(literally 'detours', figuratively 'games'), there he (the king) is
unhappy and more unhappy than the least of his subjects, who play and
distract (or entertain) themselves.

How would a Buddhist respond to such a statement ?
I have a feeling he or she would agree at least on some levels. Even though it seemed Buddhism was introduced to the west beginning mainly in the 20th century, this quote seems to echo that the West was not totally unawares.
If I remember correctly, "Lines Composed a Few Mile Above Tintern Abbey" also seemed to reiterate some principles found in Buddhism.
There were probably missionaries who came in contact with it after the birth of Christ. Reverand Kusala mentions Zen Buddhism was actual a reaction of missionaries coming in contact with the existing Therevadan tradition.

Apparently Pascal is aware of the same thing that the Buddha was aware of before he became enlightened: i.e. a view of reality which was the actual incentive for Gautama to look for enlightenment, asking something like,
"How can I be happy, even as a king, when illness and death are inevitable?"
This description of the "human condition" is presumably well-known to many other people too.
What's remarkable about Buddhism isn't its description of the problem: what's remarkable is the Buddha's description of the solution to that problem.
Pascal describes the problem but not the solution. He says (I paraphrase),

"We can't be happy. But there's a reason for that, i.e. our feeble and mortal condition. Even a king couldn't be happy without distractions."

Later,

"Thus goes life. We look for rest by overcoming a few obstacles. And when they're overcome, rest becomes insufferable."

And a few pages beyond that,

"Man, who hasn't been able to heal death, misery, and ignorance, has advised himself not to think about it.

The conclusion to that chapter is that such distraction is actually harmful because it stops us from looking for the real remedy:

puisque l’homme ne s’ennuie de tout, et ne cherche cette multitude d’occupations que parce qu’il a l’idée du bonheur qu’il a perdu ; lequel ne trouvant pas en soi, il le cherche inutilement dans les choses extérieures, sans se pouvoir jamais contenter, parce qu’il n’est ni dans nous, ni dans les créatures, mais en Dieu seul.
because man gets bored with everything, and searches for this multitude of activities only because he has the idea of the unhappiness which he has lost; which having not found (happiness) in himself, he (man) looks for it uselessly (in vain) in external things, never able to content himself, because it (happiness) is not in us, not in the creatures, but only in God.

In summary I think that Pascal is aware of the First Noble Truth but the rest of it is not especially Buddhist. The remedy which Pascal proposes (elsewhere in the book) is the Christian faith.

An interesting note is that Pascal does not necessarily suggest sitting still in a room in the translation but rather have the potential or ability to. I am left to believe sitting still in a room will cultivate our ability to sit still in a room.

My guess is that for Pascal, the fact that people can't simply relax in a room happily is a fact of life (not one to be changed), and is a throw-away observation as he introduces human misery and vain activity: and according to him the solution is to [go out and] follow the rules which Christ left to the Church to give to us! Other random quotes like the two at the end of this answer also contain elements which could have (fairly distant) parallels to 'Buddhist' doctrine: e.g. "proof by reason", and perhaps "humility" as opposed to ego.

And as for Above Tintern Abbey, I might manufacture some (distant) parallels between that too and Buddhist doctrine: e.g. I think he was treating that place and that memory as a 'Refuge'.

Yes, the passage I was thinking of was more along the lines of animsim: And I have felt A presence that disturbs me with the joy Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime Of something far more deeply interfused, Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, And the round ocean and the living air, And the blue sky, and in the mind of man; A motion and a spirit, that impels All thinking things, all objects of all thought, And rolls through all things.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it helpful to avoid first person pronouns when speaking and writing?
"There's no 'I' in team" is an aphorism that promotes the selfless group effort, but what about first person pronouns from a Buddhist perspective such as 'I', 'me', 'mine', and 'my'. I am also wondering about starting a sentence with the pronoun 'I'.
Is it helpful from a Buddhist perspective to always avoid such pronouns? Is using it just a symptom and the underlying disease needs to be treated?
I usually try to avoid using pronouns in these context but sometimes the ease of using them overcomes my efforts, like with this sentence.
Most likely this rule needs to be taken with a grain of salt but was wondering if the community had any helpful advice.

discussions of anatman confound "lack of identity" and "nothing is causally independent". Anatman means "nothing is causally independent."

There is no rule about such use, and the Buddha begins many suttas with 'Aham, bhikkhave...' 'I, bhikkhus,...'
ChrisW has the general idea: the point is not the use or omission of the personal pronoun but the point of view in back of and reflected by that use.

Where the point of view is simply to identify an individuality (as one's place on the computer screen is marked by the cursor) such use is called 'speaking conventionally', for example,
"Please pass me the salt. I will be going to the store at 10. I, friends, when I was a young lad ..."
Where the use is to enhance the idea of an on-going or eternal self, the use signifies that a point of view concerning the self is present in the speaker, for example,
"I am everything and everything is me. You make me feel bad. That is my toy. Some day I will be president."

As for the middle way being part of the answer to this question, there are a number of suttas where an Arahant is praised for teaching Dhamma 'without bringing in the self'.
The two extremes that are not the Middle way can be said to be the point of view that an eternal self exists and that an eternal self does not exist. (See: The First Sutta) (The way it is stated in the First Sutta: 'the path down self-indulgence, and the path down self-torture' represent the forms of behavior that result from these two extreme views of existence. They are elsewhere directly spoken of as being the two extreme worldly points of view.)
The Middle way, the essence of the Dhamma teaches the fact of becoming, the satisfactions of becoming, the disadvantages of becoming, and the way to escape from becoming without bringing in a point of view concerning 'self.'
The whole of the Dhamma is essentially The Middle Way, but The Ariyan Eightfold Way is specifically called that, and an equivalent of the Eightfold Way, also often called 'The Way Down the Middle' is the Paticca Samuppada which you can see speaks about the process but does not bring in the self:

"From blindness proceeds own-making.
  From own-making proceeds consciousness.
  From consciousness proceeds named-forms.
  From named-forms proceeds the six realms of the senses.
  From the six realms of the senses proceeds sense-experience.
  From sense-experience proceeds desire.
  From desire proceeds fueling desire.
  From fueling desire proceeds existing.
  From existing proceeds birth.
  From birth proceeds old age, sickness, and death,
  grief and lamentation,
  pain and misery,
  and despair.
But from the utter eradication of blindness comes the utter destruction of own-making.
  From the utter eradication of own-making comes the utter destruction of consciousness.
  From the utter eradication of consciousness comes the utter destruction of named-forms.
  From the utter eradication of named-forms comes the utter destruction of the six realms of the senses.
  From the utter eradication of the six realms of the senses comes the utter destruction of sense-experience.
  From the utter eradication of sense-experience comes the utter destruction of desire.
  From the utter eradication of desire comes the utter destruction of fueling desire.
  From the utter eradication of fueling desire comes the utter destruction of existing.
  From the utter eradication of existing comes the utter destruction of birth.
  From the utter eradication of birth comes the utter destruction of old age, sickness and death,
  grief and lamentation,
  pain and misery,
  and despair.

No mention of self. If the thinking in back of the personal pronoun is of such a nature there is no reflection there of a point of view of self. Where the thinking in back of such speech is: "I am. That is mine. That is the self of me. I am a part of that. That is a part of me." Whether of the past, the future or of the present, then the self has been brought in.
Still this is not a matter for criticizng others or holding one's self superior or taking pride in one's handling of personal pronouns! It is simply a reflection of one's inner state of mind.

I completely support obo's answer. I think it's best to regard such usage as mere conventions in use in the world - and be mindful of the characteristic of non-self which is intrinsic to all conditioned phenomenon.

[Deva:]
  He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
  Free from taints, in final body clad,
  That monk still might use such words as "I."
  Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
  ...
  Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One :]
  Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
  All delusion's chains are cast aside:
  Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.
  That monk still might use such words as "I,"
  Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
  Well aware of common worldly speech,
  He would speak conforming to such use.
Arahanta Sutta (SN 1.25)

Elsewhere, this is what the Buddha advises :

‘You should not cling to a regional language; you should not reject
  common usage.’ So it is said. In what connection is this said? How,
  bhikkhus, is there clinging to a regional language and rejection of
  common usage? Here, bhikkhus, in different regions, they call a ‘bowl’
  pati, patta, vittha, serava, dahropa, pona or pisīla. So whatever they
  call it in such and such a region, they speak accordingly, firmly
  adhering (to the words) and insisting, ‘Only this is right; everything
  else is wrong.’ This is how, bhikkhus, there is clinging to a regional
  language and rejection of common usage. And how, bhikkhus, is there no
  clinging to a regional language and no rejection of common usage?
  Here, bhikshus, in different regions, they call a ‘bowl’ pati, patta,
  vittha, serava, dharopa, pona or pisīla. So whatever they call it in
  such and such a region, without adhering (to the words), one speaks
  accordingly. This is how, bhikkhus, there is no clinging to a regional
  language and no rejection of common usage. So it is with reference to
  this that it is said, ‘You should not cling to a regional language;
  you should not reject common usage.’
Aranavibhanga Sutta (MN 139)

Here's the Pāḷi of MN 139 (for those who are interested)

“‘janapadaniruttiṃ nābhiniveseyya, samaññaṃ nātidhāveyyā’ti — iti kho
  panetaṃ vuttaṃ. kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ? kathañca, bhikkhave,
  janapadaniruttiyā ca abhiniveso hoti samaññāya ca atisāro? idha,
  bhikkhave, tadevekaccesu janapadesu ‘pātī’ti sañjānanti, ‘pattan’ti
  sañjānanti, ‘vittan’ti sañjānanti, ‘sarāvan’ti sañjānanti
  ‘dhāropan’ti sañjānanti, ‘poṇan’ti sañjānanti, ‘pisīlavan’ti
  sañjānanti. iti yathā yathā naṃ tesu tesu janapadesu sañjānanti tathā
  tathā thāmasā parāmāsā abhinivissa voharati — ‘idameva saccaṃ,
  moghamaññan’ti. evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, janapadaniruttiyā ca abhiniveso
  hoti samaññāya ca atisāro.
“kathañca, bhikkhave, janapadaniruttiyā ca anabhiniveso hoti samaññāya
  ca anatisāro? idha, bhikkhave, tadevekaccesu janapadesu ‘pātī’ti
  sañjānanti, ‘pattan’ti sañjānanti, ‘vittan’ti sañjānanti, ‘sarāvan’ti
  sañjānanti, ‘dhāropan’ti sañjānanti, ‘poṇan’ti sañjānanti,
  ‘pisīlavan’ti sañjānanti. iti yathā yathā naṃ tesu tesu janapadesu
  sañjānanti ‘idaṃ kira me āyasmanto sandhāya voharantī’ti tathā
  tathā voharati aparāmasaṃ. evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, janapadaniruttiyā ca
  anabhiniveso hoti, samaññāya ca anatisāro. ‘janapadaniruttiṃ
  nābhiniveseyya samaññaṃ nātidhāveyyā’ti — iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ
  paṭicca vuttaṃ.

Thanks for the citation to SN 1.1.25 I had wanted to include that in my answer but could not remember where it came from. For the full text see: http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/01_sagv/idx_01_devatasamyutta.htm#p25

Can you please explain why you included MN 139? It seems like it is kind of related, perhaps peripherally. The passage from SN makes more sense to me in this context.

@Sisyphus Yes, you are right - it is only peripherally related - but I thought "you should not reject common usage" might be relevant if it is understood in and of itself - though the Buddha explains it in a different way in this discourse.

'common usage' is referring to Pali?

The words used in the Pāḷi were , Samaññā and Atisāra, which seems to roughly translate to "Designation" and "Overstepping/Extrapolating" in English. So, "do not reject common usage" - seems to be a translation of what in the Pāḷi was seemingly written/meant as (roughly) "do not overemphasize/extrapolate such a conventional truth as a particular designated meaning of a particular word in a particular language" - in the sense that one should not emphasize "‘Only this is right; everything else is wrong."

Is it helpful from a Buddhist perspective to always avoid such pronouns?

To avoid those pronouns reminds me of what Ursula Le Guin in this speech called "the father tongue".
As described in the first few paragraphs of Ursula's speech, avoiding "I" might often be good practice (because "I" is usually not the "subject").
Note: Le Guin is a novelist; she has written among other things a translation of the Tao Te Ching, and she is I think humane, and writes well; but she is not a formally-Buddhist teacher (and neither am I) so this is not a formally-Buddhist answer. I give this as a personal opinion instead of quoting canon because I don't know that there is a canonical answer: Buddhists do not in my experience avoid saying "I".
I deliberately wrote "me" into the first sentence, to signal that was a personal not a canonical answer. It might have been easy to try to make it sound more authoritative: "Avoiding those pronouns is what Le Guin called etc."
But it wouldn't actually be more authoritative though, even if it were trying to sound that way.
I try to write truthfully at least: i.e. "Right Speech" (although Right Speech is more difficult than simply being truthful; it would also have to be appropriately-timed and helpful and welcome).
Sometimes we talk about things ("that table's dirty"), sometimes opinions ("I think that table looks dirty").

I usually try to avoid using pronouns in these context but sometimes the ease of using them overcomes my efforts, like with this sentence.

Yes, well that's what happens when you write about yourself. :-)

Is using it just a symptom and the underlying disease needs to be treated?

I doubt it's helpful to always avoid such pronouns.
It makes sense to use it sometimes: e.g. when you go to a doctor to say, "I am sick" rather than "This person (points finger) is sick."
If you're not a monk it might be basic politeness too, when shopping: "Good morning. I would like a loaf of bread, please."
There are plenty of uses of the word "I", e.g. on pages like the following: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kamma.html
These Zen stories are full of the word "I": http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html
Buddhists are at least supposed to be tolerant of each other, I don't see why you should have to avoid "I".

I think a more usual way to formulate your question is how to view "self". For example, seeing "self" as eternal is wrong, but seeing "self" as destructible is wrong. And that answer is more difficult. But I'm pretty sure that the "Middle Way" is part of the answer to that question.

The humorous anecdote at the beginning of the commencement address by Ursula Le Guin piques my curiosity for the rest of the speech. The link seems to be a part of a repository for other commencement addresses.

You mean the humorous anecdote which starts, "People need to be getting up now. ..."? She summarizes it as the language of lectures and public discourse ... and not even "language of objectivity" but "language of thought that seeks objectivity". I contrast that with the advice a little later, "Offer your experience as your truth." etc.

"unlearning what we learned in college and then relearning what we unlearned..." may be it wasn't meant to be humorous but i did chuckle. I dont think I got as far as the part you just mentioned.

A very practical advice, trying it, playing with it, and finding out if the notion of I is disappearing.
Thinking on understanding, there is no better that testing.

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


text:
What is the Buddhist Way to Reform and Correct People?
In early Buddhism we see that characters like:

Angulimala
Ajatasatru
Ashoka

In recent times we have seen S.N.Goenka doing prison courses. Also there are new perspectives in correction discussed in talks like: The neuroscience of restorative justice.
So how can Buddhism be used for the correction of people, and how does this compare with other developments in this area using lessons and teachings from within the Tripiṭaka?

I wonder why someone downvoted this question, I thought I was quite an interesting one. I do believe there are meditation courses set up for inmates in Europe and America, so this does seem apt and relevant.

I am also trying to figure why the down votes. Some comments could have helped. If improvements are needed you can edit the question.

I know nothing about the topic, so I couldn't tell the difference between this question and  https://www.google.com/search?q=prison+buddhism ? Because the question is open (apparently any answer related to Buddhism and prison might be on-topic) therefore it's "too broad". The only difference between a google search and positing here is that here you're only polling for opinions of the people who happen to use this site, and to that extent you seem to be looking for answers that are somewhat subjective or opinion-based.

So is the question, "What does the historical Tripitaka say about how to reform killers and criminals? Does the Tripitaka contain relevant advice and/or stories?" And/or are you looking for stories and/or lessons from modern practical experience?

I am looking for application from the Tripitaka to reform people. Also how this comparer with modern developments.

Hmm, I never thought the story of Angulimala as "to reform" or "to correct" someone (the grammatical accusative form) - different from the way which the Buddha had chosen to teach people who want to learn and give them the chance to hear him and understand the tools how to proceed to leave hatred, unconsciousness, stickyness ... . It was -again in my view, and perhaps I'm alone on this world with this view- never to "reform someone".

@GottfriedHelms Of course you're not alone. :-) I imagine Suminda might mean, "provide conditions on which the origination of a person's reform might depend" (e.g. making Buddhism available, perhaps in some agreeable way i.e. while not incurring their hatred). And/or Buddhism might be helpful, not as a doctrine to inflict on the people who "need to be reformed", but as a doctrine which informs the people who are trying to help them to reform.

JFGI is never an answer. When StackExchange has reached it's peak, we will be able to shut down google and stop using it.

@MatthewMartin My complaint is that that query returns a million search results, and the question didn't seem to me specific enough to let me guess which of these might be worth re-quoting: i.e. it's too broad. Maybe instead it's intended for an expert on that subject who will answer from their personal experience? Also I didn't vote to close the question. And I tried to describe my reasons for downvoting, perhaps against my better judgement, because Suminda asked for that comment: and not because I wanted an argument about it.

All cromulent reasons to complain about a question, just addressing the google part.

I suggest making explicit in the title that this is about incarcerated people. So its clear its a correction in the criminal system sense

Asoka and Ajasath were not necessary in the criminals but Tyrants.

I didn't down vote! I would say that the Buddha and the Buddha's system are not ways to reform people, they are ways for people to reform themselves.
What the Buddha did in cases like Angulimala was to perceive the particular approach which would be met with a comprehension that lead to their change or understanding of the goal. And this also usually under circumstances of compassion specific to the individual.
The idea of reforming people involves ambition, desire, wanting, etc. I think the distinction applies especially in cases such as prison reform. The lack of a specific target and certainty that one is providing an approach that will lead to attainment of the reform tells me that what is at work in a case like that is personal ambition rather than compassion.
When the Buddha speaks of the good man being of benefit to gods and men, he is speaking about the example they set. From the good example people reform themselves.
So, I suppose I would give as answer to this question: the best method for providing an opportunity for people to reform themselves is by being a good example.

Is there any reason to imagine that people are aware of your good example, and motivated to believe that they can and should follow your example? Does "compassion" suggest that you essentially ignore these people, and go about your own life, until or unless they want to ask how to follow your example?

I object to having my comment limited in length! Apologies if it is against the rules, but I will break it up into three comments.
The individuality is an illusion. What that illusion is founded on is mind. That mind is omnicient. People, individuals, have been seeking an escape from rebirth since the beginning of time. Unconsciously they will be aware of the individual who has found a solution to this problem. Another way of saying that is that people are aware of everything at one level.

I would not say compassion suggests ignoring people, but it is definately a different thing than trying to mess with other people's lives. Crusading for the benefit of the world. Etc.

What you definately see in the example of the Buddha as we find it in the suttas is that he responds. To questions and to situations where he perceives 'the ripeness' of an individual to receive a custom-tailored instruction. Within the sangha and at 'meetings' he will give a spontaneous dissertation, but here there is an implicit request for him to teach.

Thank you for your explanation. One way I like to deal with the comment-length limitation can be to edit/add to the answer, instead of trying to reply in comments.

@obo maybe you can add to your answer as ChrisW suggested.

I would probably agree that the goal is to get people to reform themselves, but how do we live  in a society where people haven't gotten there yet? How do we realistically deal with people who've committed horrible crimes? If capital punishment isn't the anawer, and I  don't think it is,  we have to have some kind of process/mechanism for the safety and benefit others.

I guess it can be difficult to make a connection with people.
Maybe they're not interested in Buddhism. How then can you talk with them?
Here is a short story of a venerable teaching blues harmonica to the people at a juvenile detention centre ("juvenile detention" implies "young criminals"):

In addition to his other duties Kusala Bhikshu gave presentations in the Los Angeles County Central Juvenile Hall on Buddhism, and meditation for four years, and for a year taught Blues Harmonica at a juvenile probation camp in Malibu, CA. Before his work in juvenile hall, and the probation camp, he spent one year as a volunteer at the Los Angeles County State Prison for men. In December of 1998 Kusala was given the “Good Samaritan of the Year” award for his work in juvenile hall by the Los Angeles County Probation Department.
In March of 2000 Kusala ended his volunteer work at Central Juvenile Hall, and accepted an invitation from the Garden Grove Police Department to become a police chaplain. Meditation, and yoga are still being taught at Central Juvenile hall thanks to the dedicated effort of various Buddhist volunteers and yoga teachers.


text:
Why should one develop compassion?
Maybe a strange question, because for some people it's obvious that you should be compassionate. I'm just interested in knowing why.
Hatred is unskillful, but why should one develop compassion instead? Why is "not hating" not enough?

Not at all a strange question -- in fact a very natural and important one.

Best question I have read on this site in a while. :)

Compassion and loving-kindness replaces anger well.

"Hatred is unskillful, but why should one develop compassion instead?"
Compassion (karuṇā) and loving-kindness (mettā) help one overcome obstacles:

Bhikkhus, there are these five ways of removing annoyance, by which annoyance can be entirely removed by a bhikkhu when it arises in him. What are the five?
Loving-kindness can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed: this is how annoyance with him can be removed. Compassion can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. Onlooking equanimity can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. The forgetting and ignoring of a person with whom you are annoyed can be practiced; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. Ownership of deeds in a person with whom you are annoyed can be concentrated upon thus: "This good person is owner of his deeds, heir to his deeds, his deeds are the womb from which he is born, his deeds are his kin for whom he is responsible, his deeds are his refuge, he is heir to his deeds, be they good or bad." This too is how annoyance with him can be removed. These are the five ways of removing annoyance, by which annoyance can be entirely removed in a bhikkhu when it arises in him.
-- AN 5:161

Also, there are fruits associated with compassion and loving-kindness:

Bhikkhus, when the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness is maintained in being, made much of, used as one's vehicle, used as one's foundation, established, consolidated, and properly managed, then eleven blessings can be expected. What are the eleven?
A man sleeps in comfort; he wakes in comfort; he dreams no evil dreams; he is dear to human beings; he is dear to non-human beings; the gods guard him; no fire or poison or weapon harms him; his mind can be quickly concentrated; the expression of his face is serene; he dies without falling into confusion; and, even if he fails to penetrate any further, he will pass on to the world of High Divinity, to the Brahma world.
-- AN 11:16
Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu cultivates loving-kindness for as long as a fingersnap, he is called a bhikkhu. He is not destitute of jhana meditation, he carries out the Master's teaching, he responds to advice, and he does not eat the country's alms food in vain. So what should be said of those who make much of it?
-- AN 1:53-55, 386

"Why is "not hating" not enough?"
Now, the absense of loving-kindness may not be enough to properly protect one's mind from defilements:

Here, friends, a bhikkhu might say: "When the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness is maintained in being and made much of by me, used as my vehicle, used as my foundation, established, consolidated, and properly managed, ill-will nevertheless still invades my heart and remains." He should be told: "Not so. Let the worthy one not say so. Let him not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not express it thus." Friends, it is impossible, it cannot happen, that when the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness is maintained in being and made much of, used as one's vehicle, used as one's foundation, established, consolidated, and properly managed, ill-will can invade the heart and remain; for this, that is to say, the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness, is the escape from ill-will.
-- DN 33

At the end: loving-kindness is sufficient to escape from ill-will, and/but an absence of loving-kindness might not be.

+1 for the last quote: without goodwill as a foundation, one just waits until ill will has already arisen to remove it.

One reason is that compassion softens self-boundaries the most.
Hatred strengthens boundaries of the self.  Someone does something contrary to what we value, and our emotional reaction not only strengthens our attachment to this value, but our attachment to ourselves, as we identify more strongly with us vs. the other (exemplified by that person).
Not hating (letting go) softens this for obvious reasons.
Compassion goes further, for to positively work towards the benefits of others (especially those we would normally hate) is to further soften our self-boundaries, by putting our time and energy into their welfare, and in a way, to start thinking of their welfare as our welfare (in a way, this is what caring is).
I think the best explanation for compassion's role in softening the boundaries of the self doesn't come from Buddhism but from... Einstein.  Here's a very nice quote of his:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part
  limited in time and space.  He experiences himself, his thoughts and
  feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical
  delusion of his consciousness.  This delusion is a kind of prison for
  us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
  persons nearest to us.  Our task must be to free ourselves from this
  prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
  creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.  Nobody is able to
  achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in
  itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.

Now you may not agree on how completely we can achieve this, but the central idea here is that compassion relaxes the boundaries of the self, expands our sense of one-ness, and to the extent we can express compassion, we are liberated.

The central belief in Buddhism is that we are not who we naively think we are. The central question is, well, who are we then?
In the Mahayana version, a hard to follow discussion leads to the us that nothing is causally independent and as a consequence, we should reframe the question of liberation (from what ever problem brought us to seek the answers that religion provides) to how do we solve this problem for everyone. No one is enlightened until we all are enlightened.
In the various paths of liberation, it the Mahayana version, re-orienting the goal to include everyone (dealing with everyone's problems, not just your own), is the first (or first of two) steps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation#Lam_Rim
So to raise the motivation to reach liberation via the liberation of all, it helps to dwell on the misery of others & to follow through to act on that.

The Buddha showed compassion: that's stated in the Ayacana Sutta,

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with etc.

"Not hating" may be enough: the fifth verse in the Dhammapada says "non-hatred" not "compassion",

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There is an article Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas
by
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi which mentions different views of compassion within different schools of Buddhism.
Its last section is titled "Breaking down old stereotypes" and says that there are two negative stereotypes:

(1) Arahants, and Theravādin Buddhists, are concerned exclusively with their own salvation as opposed to the benefit of others; they have a narrow fixation on personal liberation because they are "fearful of birth and death" and therefore have little compassion for others and don't undertake activities intended to benefit them.
(2) Followers of the bodhisattva ideal, and Mahāyāna Buddhists, are so much involved in social projects aimed at benefiting others that they don't take up the practice that the Buddha assigned to his disciples, namely, the taming of the mind and the development of insight. They have overwhelmed themselves with social duties and forsaken meditation practice.

Saying that the first of these stereotypes is untrue:

The example established by the Buddha's great arahant disciples has been the model for the followers of the arahant ideal throughout history. While those who pursue this ideal do not make such lofty vows as do followers of the bodhisattva ideal, they are inspired by the example of the Buddha and his great disciples to work for the spiritual and moral uplift of others to the best of their ability: by teaching, by example, and by direct spiritual influence, inspired by the Buddha's command to "wander forth for the welfare of the multitude, for the happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and human beings."

It says that "giving" is important:

Those who seek the goal of nirvāṇa do not wait until they become arahants before they start helping others. Within this system, giving is regarded as the foundation for all other virtues; it is the first basis of merit and the first of the ten pāramis.

For a beginner, I guess that compassion might help:

Harmlessness (if you feel compassion then you don't want to cause harm)
Equanimity (if someone annoys you then feeling compassion for them is an antidote)
Non-attachment (compassion could cause generosity, practising generosity might help to develop renunciation, patience, and other virtues)

In the Mahayana, the standard reason is that compassion is a step on the way to Bodhicitta, which is itself a necessary precursor, as motivation, to attaining full enlightenment, the state of a Buddha, the goal of the Mahayana and state of maximum benefit to sentient beings.
Unpacking that a little...
To develop Bodhicitta, one first meditates either on the kindness of others or on their essential similarity to oneself in wanting happiness, or both. With those realizations, one next nurtures compassion for others, and ultimately great compassion wherein you simply cannot bear to see anyone suffering. In that state, you not only wish others to be free of suffering, you resolve to free them yourself. Combining that with your understanding of the Four Truths, you realize that freeing others from suffering really requires that they attain liberation, and that the best way for you to help them do so is for you yourself to gain the unlimited insight and skill of a Buddha.
Hence, your motivation to attain Buddhahood is driven by great compassion and gains the intensity needed to achieve the goal. This is what is known as Bodhicitta and one who attains is it called a Bodhisattva, a being fully devoted to the welfare of others and on the way to Buddhahood.
Of course, this is a schematic account of the process -- in practice you spiral among levels of these stages, increasing your compassion, motivation, insight and skill all the while until attaining the goal.
As you can see, compassion is thus intimately intertwined with this process, as both cause and effect. And at the goal, you simultaneously attain both perfect compassion and perfect wisdom together and see them to be simply two sides of the same coin.
That all sounds a bit exalted and beyond everyday experience, though the manifest compassion of accomplished masters is evidence that it is possible. But I like to think of it this more visceral way...
I am aiming ultimately to deeply, transformationally realize emptiness or equivalently dependent arising. Having and acting from compassion behaviorally strengthens my grasp of interdependence and undermines my false sense of independence, or as it's called, inherent existence. Or even more succintly, compassion undermines the sense of an inherently existent self set against others and this promotes my grasp of emptiness.


text:
What is perfect virtue?
I know of the Buddha nature and I am familiar with the concept of reincarnation so I am not really looking for those two concept as a immediate answer but I seek more of a answer pertaining to practice and the theory of what the supposed outcome is. I seek a response in regard to ones inner being.
What is perfect virtue and what is the fruits or results of perfect virtue?

Here's an article which might answer exactly that.
A Treatise on the Paramis
The article is detailed. One paragraph from its introduction is as follows,

The "requisites of enlightenment" are the paaramiis themselves, the main topic of the treatise. The word paaramii derives from parama, "supreme," and thus suggests the eminence of the qualities which must be fulfilled by a bodhisattva in the long course of his spiritual development. But the cognate paaramitaa, the word preferred by the Mahaayaana texts and also used by Paali writers, is sometimes explained as paaram + ita, "gone to the beyond," thereby indicating the transcendental direction of these qualities. The list of paaramiis in the Paali tradition differs somewhat from the more familiar list given in Sanskrit works, which probably antedates the Mahaayaana and provided a ready set of categories for its use. Our author shows that the two lists can be correlated in section xii, and the coincidence of a number of items points to a central core already forming before the two traditions went their separate ways. The six paaramiis of the Sanskrit heritage are: giving, virtue, patience, energy, meditation, and wisdom. Later Mahaayaana texts add four more — resolution, skillful means, power, and knowledge — in order to co-ordinate on a one-to-one basis the list of perfections with the account of the ten stages of the bodhisattva's ascent to Buddhahood. The Paali works, including those composed before the rise of Mahaayaana, give a different though partly overlapping list of ten: giving, virtue, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving-kindness, and equanimity. Unlike the Mahaayaana, the Theravaada never developed a theory of stages, though such may be implicit in the grading of the paaramiis into three degrees as basic, intermediate, and ultimate (section xi).

And from its conclusion,

(xvi) What is their fruit?
Their fruit is, in brief, the state of perfect Buddhahood.  In detail, it is the acquisition of the form-body (ruupakaaya) resplendent with the multitude of meritorious qualities such as the thirty-two characteristics of a Great Man, the eighty minor marks of physical beauty, the fathom-wide aura, etc.; and, founded upon this, the glorious Dhamma-body (dhammakaaya) radiant with its collection of infinite and boundless meritorious qualities — the ten powers, the four grounds of self-confidence, the six kinds of knowledge not held in common with others, the eighteen unique Buddha-qualities, and so forth.[34] And so numerous are the Buddha-qualities that even a perfectly enlightened Buddha could not finish describing them, even after many aeons. This is their fruit.
And it is said:

If a Buddha were to speak in praise of a Buddha,
Speaking nothing else for an aeon's length,
Sooner would the long-standing aeon reach its end,
But the praise of the Tathaagata would not reach its end.

Other paragraphs, in the middle of the article, are more interesting (more practical, "petaining to practice"). They include:

(i) What are the paaramiis?
(ii) In what sense are they called "paaramiis"?
(iii) How many are there?
(iv) What is their sequence?
(v) What are their characteristics, functions, manifestations, and proximate causes?
(vi) What is their condition?
(vii) What is their defilement (sa"nkilesa)?
(viii) What is their cleansing (vodaana)?
(ix) What are their opposites (pa.tipakkha)?
(x) How are they to be practiced?
(xi) How are they analyzed (ko vibhaago)?
(xii) How are they synthesized (ko sa"ngaho)?
(xiii) By what means are they accomplished?
(xiv) How much time is required to accomplish them?
(xv) What benefits do they bring?
(xvi) What is their fruit?

Perfect virtue would be Arahantship. At a certain point it will be seen that behaviors not encompassed by ordinary definitions of ethical behavior will still result in suffering for one's self and others and that there is no real 'out' outside of being outside of existence, i.e., arahantship.
Meanwhile down here, every advance in ethical behavior (as derived from a basis in the Four Truths -- every 'point of view' will produce a different set of values and those values are the basis of what is called ethical behavior, so there is no one standard) brings release from future guilt and blame and that is no little reward.

A link possible to Perfect virtue and about the fruits of walking a perfect way for maintaining it.

[Ananda:] "What, O Venerable One, is the reward and blessing of wholesome morality?"
[The Buddha:] "Freedom from remorse, Ananda."
"And of freedom from remorse?"...

Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti.
Sīlena bhoga-sampadā.
Sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti.
Tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.

The first link says, "The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you. Please login below or register an account with Virtual Dhamma-Vinaya Vihara."

The quote at the end (Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti) seems to be from the ceremony of taking the 5 or 8 precepts. Is that (i.e. the precepts) how you define "perfect" virtue?

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


text:
Buddhism and organ donation
Thank you for creating this website.
I have a question regarding organ donation.
How is organ donation understood in theravada buddhism? Is it okay to do it?
Have a good day.
May all beings be happy and peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.
Lanka

I found this article (by
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi) recently when I was looking for a description of "compassion".
It says (beware that the following quote is taken slightly out of context),

Lay people support the Sangha with their simple material needs of food, robes, dwellings, and medicines. They also give generously to the poor and disadvantaged. In Sri Lanka, for example, blood donation campaigns are common on Buddhist holidays, and many people donate their eyes to eye banks and their bodily organs for medical research after their death. I learned recently that in Sri Lanka, more than 200 monks have donated kidneys, without any thought of remuneration or any other personal benefit, solely for the privilege of giving a bodily organ.

I infer that the "kidney donation" is from living donors.
In summary, I think that Theravada Buddhism says it's okay to do it (perhaps with some limitations which I hope are obvious regarding harmlessness).

This Buddhism and organ donation page from the UK claims that it's ethically okay, for example here is one of several quotes,

Organ donation is acceptable in Theravada Buddhism. It is a Buddhist virtue to generously extend help to other sentient beings and this covers the case of organ donation." (Phramaha Laow Panyasiri, Abbot, The Buddhavihara Temple)

It also says,

There are no injunctions in Buddhism for or against organ donation. The death process of an individual is viewed as a very important time that should be treated with the greatest care and respect. In some traditions, the moment of death is defined according to criteria which differ from those of modern Western medicine, and there are differing views as to the acceptability of organ transplantation.

I tried to ask about "the moment of death" in this separate question: How long to leave a body undisturbed after death?

Hi Chris. Thank you for your answer. I really appreciate it:)


text:
Can one lose jhana?
Once one has learned how to obtain and maintain jhana can the ability be lost (i.e., forgotten), due to lack of use.

It sounds like you're asking two different questions.  The first is whether one can lose the insights gained from jhana.  The second is whether one can lose the ability to enter and maintain jhana.  Could you clarify?  Also, if you meant the former, could you clarify what you mean by losing insight?

Thanks, didn't mean to confuse.  The question is not about insight,  I don't believe you can lose insight.  My question is once you have learned how to attain jhana,  if you don't practice it for a while can you forget how to achieve it?

I've heard the word 'jhana' used (those of form and formless) which seem to be states of mind though I am probably mistaken. The context I heard them in is that one gives up their pain and pleasure to reach the final jhana which has just equanimity. It may benefit other readers to add some background information in the question.

Jhana translate to Chinese as "Chan", and to Japanese as "Zen". I am from a Vietnamese & Japanese style so we call it Zen mostly.

This is a possibility with regard to mundane Dhyāna / Jhana. One such instance is Devadatta

One good example from the Buddha’s time was Devadatta, who was a brother of princess Yasodhara. Devadatta became a monk and developed the mundane jhanas and attained those direct knowledges described above. He could perform many “miracles”, and one time he appeared in the bedroom of Prince Ajasattu to impress him. But when Devadatta went against the Buddha and at one time injured the Buddha, he lost all his mundane powers and ended up in the lowest realm (avici niraya) because of those offenses.

Also

There is this story about a yogi who was travelling by air with abhinna powers and saw a flower in the shape of a woman (called “närilathä”) and lost the jhanic state and came down; there is another such story where the yogi heard the singing of a woman and had to face the same fate.

Source: Power of the Human Mind – Anariya or Mundane Jhanas

It is amazing how different our traditions are between yours and mine. But it is even more amazing how the dharma seems to transcend both of our traditions. Even though you often recite texts and sutras that I as a Zen practitioner have never read or heard of, it brings me great joy to find and explore the dharma in what you have to say.

Yes you can. Forgetfulness is very common. Everyday I lose/forget jhana throughout the day and everyday I have to wake up and remember again. It is a daily, moment to moment practice to remember the jhana.
Here is a story from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones.

Zen students are with their masters at least two years before they presume to teach others. Nan-in was visited by Tenno, who, having passed his apprenticeship, had become a teacher. The day happened to be rainy, so Tenno wore wooden clogs and carried an umbrella. After greeting him Nan-in remarked: “I suppose you left your wooden clogs in the vestibule. I want to know if your umbrella is on the right or left side of the clogs.”
Tenno, confused, had no instant answer. He realized that he was unable to carry his Zen every minute. He became Nan-in’s pupil, and he studied six more years to accomplish his every-minute Zen.

First of all, You can switch the Jhana to turn on and off.
Sexual intercourse and Alcohol might reduce the concentration for a while tho.
Once you become a stream-enterer, it's not possible to lose your Ability to get into Jhana.
Breaking the Precepts will help you lose your ability tho because a lot of hindrances will popup and hinder your concentration.

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


text:
Minimal nutritionally complete diet
In college, I vaguely recall my instructor mentioning it was possible to live on beans and rice alone. When put together, all the essential amino acids can be obtained. I've also heard that it is possible to live on brown rice alone though I'm not sure.
From a Buddhist perspective, regarding choice of ingredients what is the minimum number of ingredients that one can get by and still be nutritionally complete, preferring plant and dairy sources, if possible. Recently a soy drink called Soylent[1] has been available which claims to be nutritionally complete but I was hoping to find a natural, fresh alternative. It's also discussed on SE Skeptics [2].
I do understand that eating the same dish every day can become bland, but it seems like the right thing to do from a Buddhism perspective, valuing simplicity.
There is a research article on pubmed which used the Campbells Wellness plan but seems to take include non-vegetarian ingredients.
An article on NPR [4] takes on the issue but still leaves the reader guessing.
[1] http://www.soylent.me/
[2] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17347/is-soylent-a-nutritionally-complete-shake
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10491676
[4] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/05/03/151932410/man-cannot-live-on-rice-and-beans-alone-but-many-do

I know about Soylent. It is made with fish oil. I abstain from eating animal products so Soylent is not a viable source for me keeping to the precepts.

I agree with ChrisW's opening sentence (even though he went on to answer!). Adding "From a Buddhist perspective" doesn't actually give this question a Buddhist perspective. It's a question about diet, and Soylent in particular. Voting to close.

yes i too agree. his reminder about ascetism was really great. I thought about it several times today especially when I added some sour cream to my beans and rice during lunch.

@tkp I answered it because some people may become vegetarian when they become Buddhist, without having previous (cultural) experience with being vegetarian. For example, All that said, about half of US Buddhist I know are vegetarian. That is 25 times higher than the national rate.

Another (more specifically Buddhist) topic about diet is What dietary practices are most helpful for reaching enlightenment?

I interpret this as a modern science question about nutritional completeness (so I don't see how adding "from a Buddhism perspective" changes the the nature of the question).
Some lay Buddhists prefer to be vegetarian, in which case I could recommend Wikipedia's Vegetarian nutrition article as an introduction to the nutritional aspects of that choice.
In summary, some of the nutrients which a naive vegetarian/vegan diet can eventually lack include protein, iron, zinc, vitamin B12, and calcium.
You may find that you must deliberately include, in your diet, substances which the average person is warned they have too much of: for example (iodized) salt, and oil.
Conventional scientific advice includes that you should have a varied diet (even if that diet is vegetarian).
IMO, beware that the diet which sustains you for a week or month or year might not be adequate to sustain you for decades. Vitamin/mineral pills might help. If your doctor knows you're vegetarian, he/she may help to monitor your health (e.g. measuring serum ferritin and whatnot occasionally).
The dietary rules for monks might be different (e.g. perhaps they eat whatever they're given).
I suppose there are other aspects of diet that are important:

How much?
When?
For what purpose?
With whom?

You presumably know that the Middle Way suggests you don't get too heavily into asceticism.
On the subject of "rice and beans" here's a recipe I use:

cooked (optionally canned) of beans, well rinced (or iirc lentils have more iron than other beans)
cooked rice (quantity depends on your caloric need)
tinned sweet corn, well rinced (ditto)
plenty of chopped raw vegetables: red or green pepper, onion, apple, celery
oil (e.g. olive oil), lemon juice, and salt

The vegetables in this dish are robust (adding e.g. sliced cucumber would make it more perishable) so IMO you can keep it in the refrigerator for 2 days (and thus prep it once and eat it for 3 days in a row).
What you were saying about amino acids is called the "complementary protein" theory. Here is a claim about that:

While the idea that we need to combine proteins from different plant sources at every single meal has been refuted, it is still important to stress that in order to get proper nutrition one needs to eat variety of different plant foods every day, so that in each 24-hour period one gets all the essential amino acids.

Yeah I didnt think of the ascetic aspect of a plain diet; I'm glad you pointed it out.

That podcast you had me listen to yesterday included his saying something like, "Being in good health is the slowest way to die." :-)


text:
Can I call myself Buddhist? Is Buddhism a religion?
There are differences of opinion on the question of whether or not Buddhism should be considered a religion. Many sources commonly refer to Buddhism as a religion.
If yes then in which region? Can I call myself Buddhist? If I believe in Buddha and his philosophy?
But it is still confusing! Need precise answer if possible!

The key word I feel left out is "Practice". If you believe in Buddha and his philosophy, that is not practicing the dharma (practicing the way of the Buddha). Thus if you want to call yourself a Buddhist, practicing the way of the Buddha is key. In the same sense, if you believe in karate and it's philosophy does not make you a karateka. Only practicing karate makes you karateka.

There are so many buddhisms. Devotion, belief and folklore, which are elements westerns associate more easily with "religion" are part of some buddhisms (along with a highly powerful and transcendental version of the Buddhas), but not part of others. It would be nice to have an answer depicting different traditions...

Keep in mind the distinction between following what Buddha taught, and the rituals that were made around his teachings.

what is the point in calling youself a Buddish or a hippie or a hipster? Ideals, thoughts and actions are what matter. Love, truth, forgiveness are above any religion. Why not call yourself a free-thinker?

Buddhism has the idea of the three jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.
You said "I believe in Buddha and his philosophy" so that's two of them, i.e. Buddha, and Dharma.
There are parts e.g. in the Dhammapada which suggest it's better to be alone than with a fool:

If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

But Buddhism might also support (or encourage or recommend) friendship. For example, the Upaddha Sutta says,

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.
"And how does etc.
Note: As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good qualities.

I recently heard a dharma talk on how we often undervalue sangha in the three jewels, and yet it is the sangha that is often the foundation holding up the other two jewels.

As a zen buddhist in Florida of the United States, taking refuge in the three jewels is the ceremony in which one will often consider themselves becoming buddhist. Taking on the precepts can be seen as the threshold one makes to become a Buddhist. Afterwards one often gets a "Dharma name" and formally calls themselves a Buddhist Practitioner.
Of course this is all merely ceremonial but the point of taking on a title is very tied to ceremonies. I graduated college with a ceremony. I grew another year with a ceremony. I became a man with a ceremony. Ceromonies help define ourselves to ourselves and to others.
However in my personal experience one becomes a Buddhist when they join a sangha. It is in a sangha where I feel the practice really comes alive in my life.

I doubt you'll find a good answer as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a way of life, simply because there's a ton of stuff that's called Buddhism and not everyone agrees as to what constitutes a religion anyway.
Many Buddhists consider taking the vows to be the thing that makes you a Buddhist, so if you want to make it "official", you can take the vows at your friendly neighborhood Buddhist Temple.
Outside of that, I imagine you can call yourself a Buddhist if you believe in the Buddha and his message.
Do keep in mind that Buddhism is just a label; it's really about how you live.  You need not identify yourself as a Buddhist to live a Buddhist life and many people who identify as Buddhists do not live a Buddhist life.

Can I call myself Buddhist?

I'm going to quote parts of my answer on this question:
There isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher and/or have 'taken refuge' (which is a formal or informal ceremony which marks your decision to become a Buddhist).
Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called "What Makes You Not a Buddhist":

It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do, you can call yourself a Buddhist (ref).

So yes, you can call yourself a Buddhist. Whether other Buddhists agree with you may depend on the tradition they follow.

Is Buddhism a religion?

Most Buddhists I know regard Buddhism as a lifestyle rather than a religion. However, most non-Buddhists see it as a religion, probably because it shares many aspects commonly found in a religion.
BTW, you may find that the answers on this question 'Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?' give more insight in this matter.

You can call yourself a Buddhist. Other people can call you a Buddhist. But it is only words. Buddha is real, Buddhism is only idea.
Some respectful people can say that Buddhism is a religion, but again it is only words and ideas.
If you want to go this way, go without unnecessary words.

You can call yourself a Buddhist if you give fair trial to the Buddhist teaching. You should have some faith the the Buddha, the Community and the Teaching unless you will not try the Dhamma.
Buddhism is not a religion in the sense that a religion accepts a higher power.

You can call yourself a Buddhist if you like, but that is just a name, much like your own. Does changing your name change who you are? Don't worry so much about what you should call yourself, just focus on studying and practicing Buddhism.
If you are not into the academic of  philosophy studies, I don't think this is an important question you need answer to.But if you need to classify what Buddhism is for now,just take Buddhism as a way to help you understand yourself and the world around you.


text:
What is a Sangha? Do you have to be a Buddhist to join a Sangha?
What is a Sangha?
I know that a sangha is group of Buddha’s followers!
But I want to have a more thorough understanding of what a sangha is!
Do you have to be a Buddhist to join a Sangha?

Related question What are proper expectations to have about a Sangha?

According to the Wikipedia article about Sangha,

It's a Pali word meaning meaning "association", "assembly," "company" or "community"
It usually means the monastic community of ordained Buddhist monks or nuns
As a separate category, those who have attained any of the four stages of enlightenment (for example Sotāpanna), are referred to as the ariya-sangha or "noble Sangha".
The word Sangha sometimes also includes laymen and laywomen who are personally dedicated to the discipline of Dharma-Vinaya
Some lay practitioners in the West these days use the word "Sangha" as a collective term for all Buddhists, but the Pali Canon uses the word parisā (Sanskrit, parisad) for the larger Buddhist community — the monks, nuns, lay men, and lay women who have taken the Three Refuges — reserving ‘Sangha’ for a more restricted use.

So according to these conventional (non-inclusive) definitions, only Buddhists (and of those, not all Buddhists) are in the "Sangha".

Sangha is the word used for a community of fellow practitioners in Buddhism. But a Sangha does not necessarily have to be Buddhist.

It is difficult to make a change alone. In the Sangha there is a powerful collective energy of mindfulness and concentration. It can help us make a breakthrough; it ignites our insight. Our practice together of walking, sitting, breathing, eating, is very important. When we practice with the Sangha, it’s easier than practicing alone. Sometimes something may carry us away.
But thanks to the collective practice, we can regain our solidity. Even if we’re distracted, our Sangha can help us remember to come back to the present moment, to touch what is positive, to touch our own peace, to see how to undo the difficulty.
The Sangha doesn’t need to be Buddhist. Buddhism is made of non-Buddhist elements anyway.

In the Sangha there are those who bring happiness to many people.
There are those who cook very well, and there are those who take care of the garden beautifully and grow nutritious vegetables.
There are those who organize festivities in a very beautiful, creative way.
There are those who don’t have these talents, but when they do sitting meditation they are very happy, and when they walk they are also very happy and this brings happiness to others.

Such people are of great benefit to the Sangha.
Everybody contributes their part. You don’t need to be exactly like others. This is true whether you are thinking of your family as your Sangha or of the larger beloved community. Everyone has their own abilities.
You don’t need to be like others; you just need to be yourself. You don’t need to have perfect health or a perfect mind without any worries and anxiety. You can still have some pain in your body or some pain in your mind.
Source website- http://www.wkup.org/

Are you answering your own question?

I am voting this down because it is a direct quote from "Good Citizens: Creating Enlightened Society" by Thich Nhat Hanh, which I credited in my answer. You should really state where you are getting something when copying text. I am assuming you pulled this off the Wake Up page at wkup.org.

What is a Sangha? says,

Sangha is the word used for a community of fellow practitioners in Buddhism. But a Sangha does not necessarily have to be Buddhist.
Thich Nhat Hanh, also called Thây, wrote in his recent book Good Citizens: Creating Enlightened Society the following text (it has been shorted for an abridged version):

It is difficult to make a change alone. In the Sangha there is a powerful collective energy of mindfulness and concentration. It can help us make a breakthrough; it ignites our insight. Our practice together of walking, sitting, breathing, eating, is very important. When we practice with the Sangha, it’s easier than practicing alone. Sometimes something may carry us away.
But thanks to the collective practice, we can regain our solidity. Even if we’re distracted, our Sangha can help us remember to come back to the present moment, to touch what is positive, to touch our own peace, to see how to undo the difficulty.
The Sangha doesn’t need to be Buddhist. Buddhism is made of non-Buddhist elements anyway. When I met Martin Luther King Jr., in 1966, we spoke about Sangha building. We spoke a few times about the beloved community. The beloved community is the Sangha.
In the Sangha there are those who bring happiness to many people. There are those who cook very well, and there are those who take care of the garden beautifully and grow nutritious vegetables. There are those who organize festivities in a very beautiful, creative way. There are those who don’t have these talents, but when they do sitting meditation they are very happy, and when they walk they are also very happy and this brings happiness to others. Such people are of great benefit to the Sangha.
Everybody contributes their part. You don’t need to be exactly like others. This is true whether you are thinking of your family as your Sangha or of the larger beloved community. Everyone has their own abilities.
You don’t need to be like others; you just need to be yourself. You don’t need to have perfect health or a perfect mind without any worries and anxiety. You can still have some pain in your body or some pain in your mind.
But thanks to the practice, you can create more joy, peace, and understanding that nourishes you, nourishes the Sangha, and nourishes the world.

The Sangha is therefore an important support in your practice. Thây considers it so important that he often says, the future Buddha is a Sangha.

The definition above is a quote from "the Wake Up community", which describes itself as including Buddhists and non-Buddhsts:

Wake Up: Young Buddhists and non-Buddhists for a Healthy and Compassionate Society
Wake Up is an active global community of young mindfulness practitioners, aged 18-35, inspired by the teachings of Zen Master and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh. We come together to practice mindfulness (etc.)

Let me answer this (and illustrate some of the complexities of the question) with a personal story.
I'm not a Buddhist, but feel the core philosophy is a sound way of life. As a result, I looked into my local Buddhist Temple.  This temple had 2 groups; the traditional worship group which attended religious services, and the English Dharma Group, which meditated and discussed the Dharma.
I joined the English Dharma Group.
We rarely mixed with the traditional group, and the few times we did, I thoroughly regretted it.  I found nothing in what they did that was remotely applicable, useful or of any interest, and never considered them part of my group.  They were a traditional religion, while I was practicing a philosophy.
In short, they were not my Sangha even though they were part of the same Buddhist Temple and were Buddhist.  I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't consider the English Dharma Group to be their Sangha either.
So really, it depends on what you mean by "Sangha", "Buddhist", and "Join" :)
First, is a Sangha simply a collection of practicing Buddhists?  Is anyone who joins a Buddhist temple part of a Sangha?  Are people outside of a Buddhist temple but who practice on their own a Sangha?  Does a Sangha have to meet face to face?  Can this forum be considered a Sangha?
Second, what is a Buddhist?  Is it someone who has taken the vows?  Is it someone who practices Buddhism? Is it someone who shares core values with Buddhism?
Finally, what does it mean to join?  Does it mean simply going to the meetings?  Does it mean a deeper involvement?

Perhaps a practical/modern definition might be, "Where do you go for Refuge? And from (or with) whom do you learn/practice Dharma?"

@ChrisW that could work, although it focuses on ritual rather than practice.  Is a community of dedicated practitioners not a Sangha because they don't offer the Refuge ritual?  In fact, at my Buddhist Temple, the Refuge ceremony was part of the traditional service so members of the English Dharma Group had to go there for refuge.  Having sat through that Refuge ceremony, I saw nothing remotely Buddhist about it.

And is it no longer taking refuge if there's no associated ritual? Fwiw this answer claims that Theravāda and Mahāyāna both include the doctrine of "refuge in the Triple Jewel" but also that "in different countries there are differences [in] practices, rites and rituals, ceremonies, customs and habits [which] should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha".

@ChrisW what is a ritual-less refuge?  If ritual is an outward expression, then this amounts to the same thing as eliminating refuge, as the only acceptable inward expression of refuge (that doesn't amount to holding a vacuous thought) is living a Buddhist life.  I'm taking it as a given that beliefs imply acts, and beliefs that are thought only are the equivalent of mental gas.

I think that 'taking refuge' is a consequence of View and a reflection of Intent: an "act of consciousness", whose motive is "faith".

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html#ref6 says, "Strictly speaking, as soon as there arises in his mind an act of consciousness which takes the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha as his guiding ideal, that person has gone for refuge to the Triple Gem and become a Buddhist lay disciple (upasaka). However, within the Buddhist tradition it is generally considered to be insufficient under normal circumstances to rest content with merely going for refuge by an internal act of dedication. If one has sincerely etc."


text:
The Abhidamma Pitaka
Can anyone help me with finding The Abhidamma Pitaka or some of the 7 books from it?
I seem not to be able to find anything when searching on google. Maybe im just not skilled enough to find books/pdf's about it. I can find only descriptions of what The Abhidhamma Pitaka is and what it contains.
I would like to find it in english since i cannot read other languages.
I really want to begin studying this Pitaka. Help would be much appreciated.
May all beings be happy, peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.
Harshani
--Update--
I just found this: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhaultsci.pdf
I think its a condensation of the most essential teachings from The Abhidhamma Pitaka. Can anyone confirm this?

Apologies for a nearly identical post to another question, but:
You can get a hard copy text of the Pali Text Society edition from:
The Pali Text Society: http://palitext.com
(they also have sets of the translations) Become a member and receive a nice discount.
You can find an on-line version of the BJT text at:
Metta Net Lanka:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html
You can get a searchable CD from the Vipassana Research Institute:
http://www.vridhamma.org/Chattha-Sangayana-CD-ROM-Update
These have the Abhidhamma texts.
EDIT: In response to your revised question. I have the Abhidhamma texts. The books are:
Abhidhamma Pitaka
Dhammasangani: Buddhist Psychological Ethics
Vibhanga: The Book of Analysis
Dhatukath¤: Discourse on Elements
Puggalapannatti: A Designation of Human Types
Kathavatthu: Points of Controversy
Yamaka: —
Tikapatthana: Conditional Relations
Dukapatthana: —
I believe the book you have linked to is a new work constructed along the lines of the Abhidhamma. There may be others that can inform you better about that.

Wow thank you so much Obo :) Have you gotten a hardcopy? I mean if its an entire pitaka that must be thousands of pages, right? I forgot to say that i can only read english. Can you read my question again - i just found a link to a PDF.

Also check out suttacentral.net, Abhidhamma section and Ven. Bodhi's great lecture series here

Hi Santa and thank you so much for your help:) I really appreciate all the help i get.

I have now watched the first video (1/15) of the Adhidhamma retreat by Ven. Bodhi. Im in middle of the second one. Im amazed of how much he knows its really a joy to watch and learn from him. I feel so lucky to have the oppertunity to listen to this teaching. Again thank you Santa for showing me this buddhist monk. Wish you well:)

He definitely knows his stuff...:oD

Yes he does. Im at the 4/15 now and i have his book on Abhidhamma Sangaha also. The abhidhamma is very deep and complex so im happy i have Bhikkhu Bodhi as a teacher:) You can get his book here: http://store.pariyatti.org/Comprehensive-Manual-of-Abhidhamma-A--PDF-eBook_p_4362.html

I just found 79 dhamma talks by Bhikkhu Bodhi. http://bodhimonastery.org/a-systematic-study-of-the-majjhima-nikaya.html


text:
Where to get the Pali Canon in Pali?
Does anyone know of a place on the Internet, where one can find the entire Pali Canon written in Pali ? I did a basic search but could not find any such resource.
          Also, where can one buy a hard-copy of the entire Pali Canon(written in Pali) ? It would be helpful even if someone can point me to hard-copies of at least the Sutta-Pitaka in Pali ?

You can get a hard copy text of the Pali Text Society edition from:
The Pali Text Society: http://palitext.com
(they also have sets of the translations) Become a member and receive a nice discount.
You can find an on-line version of the BJT text at:
Metta Net Lanka:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html
You can get a searchable CD from the Vipassana Research Institute:
http://www.vridhamma.org/Chattha-Sangayana-CD-ROM-Update
Access to insight
http://accesstoinsight.org
has the pali text linked to the suttas they have posted. This is the BJT text and I believe has the entire Pali, not just the ATI-linked suttas.
I have a different version, linked to the suttas I have posted. It is based on the BJT version, proofed against the PTS version. Incomplete, but formatted in a way that is very readable. Working towards completion. Not likly for a good time yet.
http://obo.genaud.net
see the What's New Page for new listings, the Sutta Index for what is now available.

Also check out suttacentral.net, really good sources in Pali, Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan and various different language translations..

Sutta Central is a marvellous resource which enables one to find the Chinese and other language counterparts to Pāli texts and vice versa. Mainly Chinese, Sanskrit and Gāndhārī, with a very few Tibetan texts that have counterparts in Pāḷi. Chinese texts come with a look-up function to help identify words - and it is a definite improvement on Google translator :-)

Digital Pāli Reader provides two editions of the Pāli Canon: one from Myanmar and one from Thailand. This is the best Pāli reader that I've come across. It can recognise inflected words and analyse compounds, and it uses some of the best Pāli dictionaries: the Pāli-English Dictionary (PED) from the Pāli Text Society and the Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names (DPPN) by G. P. Malalasekera. The site also contains links to translations of the suttas from accesstoinsight.org, dhammatalks.org and palicanon.org.
SuttaCentral provides Pāli suttas from the Mahāsaṅgīti Tipiṭaka Buddhavasse 2500 edition of the Pāli Canon (from Thailand, which was in turn based on the VRI edition from Myanmar). It looks like the Pāli texts have better formatting and punctuation here than in most other editions. SuttaCentral also has root texts in other canonical languages (Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc.), as well as modern translations.
GRETIL (the Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages) has a section about Pāli, providing the Pāli Canon in the text format (without an online Pāli reader). It also includes paracanonical texts, chronicles, commentaries (Visuddhimagga), etc. There are two editions of the Canon: BJT Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tripiṭaka Series and PTS from the Pāli Text Society. The formatting and punctuation of the PTS edition is not great, but it does have one advantage: proper nouns are capitalised, which makes them easier to recognise.
BJT Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tripiṭaka Series
Access to Insight has the Pāli Canon from the SLTP (Sri Lanka Tripiṭaka Project), the same as or very similar to BJT. On this website, the Tipiṭaka is organised according to PTS books and page numbers.