text:
Did I do more harm than good?
I was out walking today when my eyes were intially attracted to a butterfly that was on the ground to my right. I stopped to have a quick look at it to notice that it couldnt' fly very well. I picked it up, it fluttered about in my hand and then flew a bit and landed on my jacket where I could see it better.
It turned out there was a bit of (what looked like) brown leaf which was stuck to one of its wings, which didn't seem fully developed / opened. I made the decision to pull this bit of brown off away from the wing thinking it'd help the butterfly. As I pulled it cafefully off, I noticed a tiny speck of the wing came off too. However, after I pulled it off, the butterfly flew away over my head - something it couldn't do before.
So, I'm thinking was it so panicked that it managed to fly away in terms of a short burst (it fluttered away fairly quickly) or was I able to help it do what it wanted to do in the first place?
I realise that I imposed my will onto something thinking I know best which I feel bad about but I possibly also helped it do something that it wanted to do in the first place?
I also realise that in the grand system, maybe that butterfly was to become food for another creature which I've now deprived it of. So I'm not sure whether I did something worthwhile or not.
If it wasn't worthwhile, then is helping another creature / person frowned upon because it isn't as it should be?

Consider Nonduality.

... I realize that I imposed my will...

No you did not. The spirit (in an abstract sense!) brought you and the butterfly together. You played your role, butterfly played its.
Was your intent pure? Have you felt the sacredness of the moment? Were you acting foolishly or have your weighted the possibilities?
Life and death is around us and inside us all the time. The fact that butterfly was on your right is a good sign. Life gives us chances once in a while, sometimes it's a chance to change someone's life - and sometimes it's a chance to have someone change our life, to be in the role of the butterfly.
At the end of the day we are not Gods - we can't foresee all repercussions of our acts, even such simple ones as yours. But we can do our best, and if we do it consistently then in the long run we will all be in the best place we could have possibly been.


text:
Perception (saṃjñā) and discrimination
How do perception and discrimination relate?
I remember thinking (when reading) that they were near synonyms

Discernment (wisdom; panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.

Mahavedalla Sutta

Discriminant is wisdom. You try to see things clearly or as they are, especially uncluttered by perception. (See introduction of Discernment: The Buddha’s Strategies for Happiness II)
Perception is your outlook of the world or mind map of the world.
Perception clouds seeing things as they are hence the relationship.

This question tagged as five-skandas. So the words perception and  discrimination may relate to it.
In pali  (Thipitaka - language) 'five-skandas' are "aggregates" (Pali: khandha; Skt.: skandha) are material "form" (rupa), "feeling" or "sensation" (vedana), "perception" (Saṃjñā), "volitional formations" or "fabrications" (sankhara) and consciousness (viññāṇa).
So the word "discrimination" is meen by (viññāṇa) consciousness.
taking two examples A) seeing Flower, and b) seeing leaf.
The action of separating (recognition) flower and leaf is perception (Saṃjñā).
The action of separating flower and I, leaf and I is discrimination (viññāṇa).
Quote from Maha Thera Nyanatiloka. Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, Buddhist Publication Society, first edition 1952.

Viññāna: 'consciousness', is one of the 5 groups of existence
  aggregates or clusters;khandha, one of the 4 nutriments āhāra, the 3rd
  link of the dependent origination paticcasamuppāda, the 5th in the
  sixfold division of elements; dhatu.
Viewed as one of the 5 groups; khandha it is inseparably linked with
  the 3 other mental groups feeling, perception and constructions and
  furnishes the bare cognition of the object, while the other 3
  contribute more specific functions. Its ethical and kammic character,
  and its greater or lesser degree of intensity and clarity, are chiefly
  determined by the mental constructions associated with it.

Quote from Andarei

Nothing is solid, everything is made of pieces or depends on
  conditions. This includes "I" which cannot possibly be a
  solid/independent entity. Since "I" is really just a compound
  phenomena, it is not independent and too is subject to conditions.
  What we call "consciousness" is too an interplay of conditions and not
  a substance or entity.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Equanimity in the Aghatavinaya Sutta
In the Aghatavinaya Sutta, there are five antidotes given for arisen ill-will(āghāto). I am puzzled because one of these is to develop equanimity ("upekkhā tasmiṃ puggale bhāvetabbā") and another is to reflect on ownership of kamma, which is used to generate (/is the cause of) equanimity as I understand it. I don't understand what is intended by having these separate. Full text follows.

"There are these five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred
  arises in a monk, he should wipe it out completely. Which five?
"When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop
  good will for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual
  should be subdued.
"When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop
  compassion for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual
  should be subdued.
"When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop
  equanimity toward that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual
  should be subdued.
"When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should pay him
  no mind & pay him no attention. Thus the hatred for that individual
  should be subdued.
"When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should direct
  one's thoughts to the fact of his being the product of his actions:
  'This venerable one is the doer of his actions, heir to his actions,
  born of his actions, related by his actions, and has his actions as
  his arbitrator. Whatever action he does, for good or for evil, to that
  will he fall heir.' Thus the hatred for that individual should be
  subdued.
"These are five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred arises
  in a monk, he should wipe it out completely."

Hi! "the other is to reflect on ownership of kamma which is used to generate (/is the cause of) equanimity" I'm not sure what you mean by this, and what exactly you were expected to not be separated.

@ThiagoSilva I understood the question as e.g. this says that "understanding that people are responsible for their own decisions" is one of the seven ways to develop equanimity ... so, given that "equanimity" is the 3rd item on the list above, why is "product of his actions" the fifth (separate) item on the list above, instead of being categorized under 'eqanimity'?

@ThiagoSilva, what ChrisW said.

Perhaps these are to be undertaken in sequential order, providing the previous one was insufficient in dispelling hatred.

@Ryan, the question has to do with the fact that developing equanimity and reflecting on kamma seem too similar to be separate methods.

@Adamokkha Thank you. (It shows you have offered bounty.)

Looking at the text, it does not recommend reflecting on the ownership etc of kamma as a method of developing equanimity (upekkha). Here it is specifically for removing resentment (āghāta). As far as I can tell from searching the electronic Pāli Canon the idea of reflecting on kamma is never linked with upekkhā.
In reflecting on kamma one is taking the approach to hindrances (nīvaraṇa), which Kamalashila in his book Meditation: The Buddhist Way of Tranquility and Insight calls, "considering the consequences" (pg 54-5). The other four are: cultivate the opposite (mettā & karuṇā); cultivate a "sky-like mind" (upekkhā); suppression (don't think of the person or asatiamanasikāro); and lastly going for refuge (not included here). This list and Kamalashila's are not a perfect match, but seem to be similar in intent. They are methods for dealing with the hindrances in preparation for practising jhāna.
I'm not sure whether it is helpful to think in terms of a hierarchy of "effectiveness". One has a number of techniques one can use to help deal with the hindrances, and tries each of them until one works.
The reflection on kamma comes from a list of five things to continuously reflect on famously found at AN 5.57, titled Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhāna Sutta (The Discourse of Facts to be Continuously reflected On) in the Burmese Ed. of the Canon. In this text it gives the benefit (athavasa) of doing this practice of reflecting on the consequences:

atthi, bhikkhave, sattānaṃ kāyaduccaritaṃ vacīduccaritaṃ manoduccaritaṃ. tassa taṃ ṭhānaṃ abhiṇhaṃ paccavekkhato sabbaso vā duccaritaṃ pahīyati tanu vā pana hoti. idaṃ kho, bhikkhave, atthavasaṃ paṭicca ‘kammassakomhi, kammadāyādo kammayoni kammabandhu kammapaṭisaraṇo, yaṃ kammaṃ karissāmi — kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā — tassa dāyādo bhavissāmī’ti abhiṇhaṃ paccavekkhitabbaṃ itthiyā vā purisena vā gahaṭṭhena vā pabbajitena vā.
There is, Monks, bad conduct (duccarita) of body, speech and mind by beings. But when one continuously reflects on [this reflection on kamma], then such wickedness is completely abandoned or it is [at least] diminished.

Thus the point of this practice is not so much generating upekkha as it is the elimination of wicked conduct (duccarita). And resentment (āghāta) is clearly a form of mental wicked conduct, a mano-duccarita, in the language of the Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhāna Sutta. Reflecting on the consequences of such wickedness will help the person who aims to eliminate the hindrance in preparation for meditation. Clearly this has more general ethical applications as well, but it seems the main context is meditation and eliminating the hindrances.

Very good answer

Here is a footnote from Wheel 208 regarding the first three methods:

These are the first, second and fourth of the four divine abodes (brahma-vihāra). According to A-a, the third abode, altruistic joy, is not mentioned here because it is difficult to practise it towards those against whom one has a grudge.

In other words, the first three form a set of meditative practices.
Lists in the Suttas are usually given in ascending order, but sometimes are given in descending order. My guess is that this is an example of a descending order.
The most effective way to dislodge ill-will is mettā meditation, less effective is karuṇā meditation, even less effective is upekkhā meditation. Less effective than meditation is ignoring and the least effective would be reflecting on kamma.
Reflecting on kamma may be effective in the short term, but if the perspective is from the long term, the other methods will be more effective in eliminating ill-will.

I wonder whether the sequence is from more to less 'immediate' (in time), rather than more to less 'effective': e.g. what one needs immediately is good will, and what one needs in the long term is reflecting on kamma.

I think all 5 steps for meditative practices. this arisen ill-will(āghāto) is  disturbance ('neewarana ') for tranquility. Hence the practitioner can use his already developed   "Samatha" Skills. Stating from most Soft to Hard. Metta(Good will) to Neglect then wears (let him do what he likes , not try to correct him -Like 'Brahma Danda' to Channa Bikku) .

To put it very succinctly:

Developing equanimity: do not mentally react to any sensation resulting from stimulus due to contact hence not creating any further fabrications. If you are dealing with ill will this is mainly triggered by preconceived perception (Sanna) in combination with a stimuli like the sight, through or memory about the person and one's mental reaction to this perception. Here you are cutting the defilements at the root by not feeding into new perceptions which lead to unskillful action of ill will or what might proliferate from this. Not feeding into perception eliminates or reduces the past build up of the aggregate of perceptions and the potential future fabrication created by means of reaction to these perceptions.
Contemplating that someone is the heir to one's own Karma: this is more primitive or basic that the above, but nevertheless another way to develop a shallow form of equanimity especially for beginners or when the above way does not work because you are overpowered by strength or the perception, where one tries to mend or sooth the ill feeling by means of contemplating thus changing the perception of the situation or person. Due to the changed perception you reduce creating new fabrications. Here you are reducing defilements through developing conducive perceptions or eliminating unconducive perception (ill will).

Hi Suminda, welcome back.

Great to be back again.

In the Aghatavinaya Sutta, there are five antidotes given for arisen ill-will(āghāto).

These content should be relevant to Monks, those separate from lay life, and devote to meditate in the jangles.  As shown in sutta ('when hatred arises in a monk') These  antidotes should be used within the meditations.
I am puzzled because one of these is to develop equanimity  and another is  kamma.

The given antidotes are:

Develop good will for that individual.
Develop compassion for that individual.
Develop equanimity toward that individual.
Pay him no mind & pay him no attention.
Direct one's thoughts to the fact of his being the product of his actions.

"These are five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred arises in a monk, he should wipe it out completely."
(When somebody make disturbances, the Monk in meditate should develop)

Use Metta(Good will), so the arisen ill-will(āghāto) will be wipe out.
If not wipe out ill-will, then try develop compassion.
Still ill-will arises develop equanimity.ill-will should be wipe out.
If above three methods not success then pay him no mind & no attention(Neglect).
Any of above not removes ill-will then Reject him.(See Note).

"These are five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred arises
  in a monk, he should wipe it out completely."

Conclusion
So none of the above factors produces karma.

They are used here for self protection or removes developing ill-will.
**`Notes`*

Reject = release responsibility to him 'This venerable one is the doer of his actions, heir to his actions, born of his actions, related by his actions, and has his actions as his arbitrator. Whatever action he does, for good or for evil, to that will he fall heir.
So the other party not effects, That is the highest penalty for Buddhist monk.
(The highest penalty, Ānanda, after my passing away, is to be handed out to the monk Channa.” “But what is the highest penalty, reverend Sir?” “The monk Channa, Ānanda, may say whatever he wishes but he is not to be spoken to or advised or instructed by the monks.” - Mahāparinibbānasutta)

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


text:
Five Precepts - did Buddha really preach them?
The five precepts are (from wikipedia)

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the training rule to avoid sensual misconduct.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

I am very new to Buddhism, but from what I'm understanding right now, Buddha's teachings are very simple.
The first 4 rules make sense. They are all forms of practicing detachment.
But the 5th... it's too human. Too specific. I just don't see Buddha teaching it to his disciples.
It's the same as with Ānantarika-karma, where the last crime is creating a schism in the sangha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns). It's too specific and so Buddhist oriented. Once again, I just don't see Buddha teaching it.
The question is, did Buddha teach the five precepts?

If he didn't teach it, it was probably because it was common sense in the asetic world at the time.

All Precepts boil down to 'Do No Harm' (including to yourself and your own mindfulness), and they are listed in order of severity. This is also why imbibing alcohol is placed last.

The five precepts are mentioned in Dhammika sutta. The main reason for teaching the fifth precept is said to be that intoxication easily instigates people to break other precepts by concealing the seriousness.

"Now I will tell you the layman's duty. Following it a lay-disciple
  would be virtuous; for it is not possible for one occupied with the
  household life to realize the complete bhikkhu practice (dhamma).
"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor
  should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either
  strong or weak, in the world.
"A disciple should avoid taking anything from anywhere knowing it (to
  belong to another). He should not steal nor incite another to steal.
  He should completely avoid theft.
"A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a
  pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should
  not go to another's wife.
"Having entered a royal court or a company of people he should not
  speak lies. He should not speak lies (himself) nor incite others to do
  so. He should completely avoid falsehood.
"A layman who has chosen to practice this Dhamma should not indulge in
  the drinking of intoxicants. He should not drink them nor encourage
  others to do so; realizing that it leads to madness. Through
  intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other
  heedless people to do likewise. He should avoid intoxication, this
  occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of
  foolish people.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.14.irel.html

As for creating a schism in the sangha, my understanding is that this is not applicable for laypeople. Only monks are capable of causing a split. But a layperson can be a cause indirectly which isn't a severe offense.

Thus I have heard...a monk got drunk and pointed his feet at the Buddha (a serious sign of disrespect in the Buddha's culture). At this, the Buddha banned the drinking of alcohol based on the fact that it can cause such serious lapses in mindfulness so as to lead a monk to show an extreme lack of respect.

Can you please give a source

@Andrey I was able to find this answer again by searching for "salamander".

@Andrey, the source given by ChrisW is basically the story I heard. Unfortunately there is no source given in that source and I don't know where it comes from.

@Andrey It said that the source is the "origin story" of the Patimokkha rules (i.e. the story which explains the origin of the rule). A longer version of the origin story is on page 360 of this document.

This answer says that the fifth precept was added a little later:

Alcohol is frequently absent from lists of prohibited activities, including the famous Pansil, i.e., Five Precepts. There is a fourfold version of pansil called the Four Restraints. As to why this is the case, the answer is that it is because the Buddha did not prohibit alcohol for the first eight years of the sangha. The Buddha only prohibited alcohol when a monk got drunk and passed out, embarassing the sangha.

This comment adds some support for that statement -- for example you can see that the section titled "The Short Section on Virtue" in DN 1 only mentions the first four precepts.


text:
Husband and wife for hundreds of times of consecutive rebirth. How?
In Theravada Buddhism, once a person dies he or she will be reborn immediately. Each person dies at a different time. How is it possible for a husband and a wife to meet again in the future consecutively for hundreds of times?

From what context does this question arise? I don't remember Theravada Buddhism specifically saying a person is reborn immediately unless the intermediate body counts as "immediate."

In Theravada Buddhism, once people die they take rebirth instantly. Maybe someone from this forum can confirm this.

I don't fully understand all the technical points to it, but it's not immediately, there are a few thought moments that occur, several different degrees of consciousness that arise, before consciousness arises in a new being. So it isn't immediate, but it is rather quick, as compared to something like reincarnation in Tibetan Buddhism. And AFAIK, there isn't anything like an "intermediate body".

Why would a husband and a wife meet again in the future consecutively for hundreds of times?

"Whatever living beings there may be — feeble or strong (or the seekers and the attained) long, stout, or of medium size, short, small, large, those seen or those unseen, those dwelling far or near, those who are born as well as those yet to be born — may all beings have happy minds.

The matter is a controversial because commentarial position isn't what is seemingly apparent based on the Sutta.

Maybe you will profit more from seeking an answer outside the bounds of the school. I have and I can say that there is more. Let me know if you want to pick my brain.

Husband and wife for hundreds of times of consecutive rebirth. How?

In AN 4:55 - The Same in Living, the Buddha visits a married couple in their residence. Here he is given alms food whereafter he gives a teaching to the householders.
Both householdes, Nakulapitā and Nakulamātā, asks the Buddha how they can remain together in this life and meet and be together in future lives as well.
The Buddha teaches: “Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives, they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity, and the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”
Below is the quoted sutta.

The Same in Living (1)

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Bhaggas in Suṃsumāragira in the deer park at Bhesakalā Grove. Then, in the morning, the Blessed One dressed, took his bowl and robe, and went to the residence of the householder Nakulapitā, where he sat down in the prepared seat. Then the householder Nakulapitā and the housewife Nakulamātā approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side. The householder Nakulapitā then said to the Blessed One:
“Bhante, since I was young, when the young girl Nakulamātā was given to me in marriage, I do not recall ever transgressing against her even in thought, much less by deed. We wish, Bhante, to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”
The housewife Nakulamātā in turn said to the Blessed One: “Bhante, since I was a young girl given to the young householder Nakulapitā in marriage, I do not recall ever transgressing against him even in thought, much less by deed. We wish, Bhante, to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”
“Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives, they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity, and the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”
Both husband and wife are endowed with faith,
  charitable and self-controlled,
  living their lives righteously,
  addressing each other with pleasant words,
Then many benefits accrue to them
  and they dwell at ease.
  Their enemies are saddened
  when both are the same in virtue.
Having practiced the Dhamma here,
  the same in virtuous behavior and observances,
  delighting after death in a deva world,
  they rejoice, enjoying sensual pleasures.

Usually wife is younger than husband. So they do not need to die at the same time to be marry on the next life. The real difficult part of here is to born in same world (for example both become humans) in a manner that they meet again.
No one can control this and no one can guarantee that they will meet again. (But there can be people who can tell whether they are going to meet again or not.) It's Karma which going to decide all.
For your reference, this is how rebirth happens as of my understanding. I am calling 'thought' a single 'Sitha'. Correct word is not thought. But I don't know what it is.
When a person is about to die, one of three things comes to his mind.

'Karma Nimiththa' This is either tools, people or  animals, helped to do the Karma caused to next life.
'Gathi nimiththa' This is something related to next life he is about to reborn.
'Karma' This is Karma itself, which caused to next life.

Once this thought comes, he begins to think in that direction. When the last thought of this life ends, the next thought of the same thought generation will generate on the body of the new life. This is saying person go to a new life. There is no intermediate body and nothing goes to next life from this life. Just a connection between the generation of thoughts.

Speaking of an intermediate body is conventional, or else all communication breaks down and then I claim that you may not speak of a self or of self-possessed objects. What happens after death, I'm told is similar to the process of going to sleep, presumably there is some period of "bardo" where one would probably be between the last life and the next one. At which point they would have an intermediate body, assuming they are fettered with such beliefs. Also controlled rebirth is possible

There is a self and there isn't a self. Both these terms are correct. And according to 'Theravada', there can not be any period between last and next lives. Only connection between last and next lives is it's same thought generation. As I mentioned in the answer, once the last thought ends, next thought of same thought generation will be in the new body. That is the only connection between lives.

They are only correct if interpreted correctly otherwise they can both be wrong. Plus there will not yet be a new body... since the description I have heard is that upon death the false mind seeks out a pair having sex, if they are to be a boy they love the woman and hate the man and vice versa for woman, Not disagreeing though that the connection is the stream of thoughts in the mind-ground.

I don't think everyone will reborn when he or she dies. As far as i know, there are also many places like heavens and hells, not just this human life. For couples to meet again in later lives, they have to do good deeds together or say prayers. That shows great bond between them. But it also does not make sure to be born again together in consecutive life.

Time is different in the heaven realms and animal realms. This is a Buddhist cosmological fact that I can reference the Buddhist scholar Brian Ruhe's books and youtube videos for... and then can find which Theravadin sutra talks about it (it should be the one about The Thirty-One Planes of Existence).
Compared to the human plane, time is faster in the lower planes and much slower in the higher planes (1 day in the heavenly realm is equal to thousands of days in the human [or was it a million?]).
Anyway, to answer your question, that is how; one partner may have spent some time in animal realm while the other may have spent some time in heaven and then they both sank to human realm at same time, etc.
This cycle of break-up and getting back together happened again and again hundreds of times.
[Sounds like my last relationship.]
I can give you a precise answer if you have a textual reference where such a story came from.
If such a story was from gossip alone, then you may know that it came from the Buddhist cosmological time difference fact that I stated above.

I think this is true, husband and wife do not always have to be at the same age at the time of marriage, the same thing as death. There are reasons why they can be together, for example, similarity of characters, habits and kamma. Not to mention the 'kamma of relationship/association' that has been built in the past.  Samajivina Sutta states very clearly both husband and wife who are in tune in generosity, virtue, morality, conviction and practice will meet not only in this present life but also in the future life.

From my understanding, people who are in tune in those qualities are most likely create similar kamma.


text:
What is the definition of 'fool' in Theravada Buddhist text?
The Lakkhana Sutta says,

Endowed with three things, monks, a fool can be known as a fool. What three? By bodily misconduct, by verbal misconduct, by mental misconduct. Endowed with these three things, monks, a fool can known as a fool.

But everyone has bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct and mental misconduct (I say that because we make mistakes from time to time, at least to a certain extent).
So how to differentiate between a fool's (bodily, verbal and mental) misconduct, compared to a wise person's (bodily, verbal and mental) misconduct?

For a related question see Relationships with fools: Interpreting the Dhammapada

In SN 12.19 (Bala-pandita Sutta: The Fool & the Wise Person) the Buddha explains "what distinguishing factor is there between the wise person & the fool":

The Blessed One said, "The ignorance with which the fool is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has not been abandoned by the fool; that craving has not been destroyed. Why is that? The fool has not practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is headed for a [new] body. Headed for a body, he is not entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. I tell you, he is not entirely freed from stress & suffering.
"The ignorance with which the wise person is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has been abandoned by the wise person; that craving has been destroyed. Why is that? The wise person has practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is not headed for a [new] body. Not headed for a body, he is entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is, I tell you, entirely freed from stress & suffering."

how to differentiate between fool's misconduct and wise's misconduct?

As per my penetration of the property of Sat-Dharma: fool is someone who thinks that he knows, while in reality not knowing, and acts accordingly. Wise knows what he knows and what he doesn't know - and acts accordingly:

King Milinda: Venerable Nagasena, for whom is the greater demerit, one who performs misconduct knowingly, or one who performs misconduct unknowingly?
Nagasena: What do you think, your majesty, who would get burned more, one who knowingly picks up a hot iron ball, ablaze and glowing, or one who not knowingly picks it up?

Also, Dhammapada 5.69:

So long as misconduct has yet to ripen, the fool mistakes it for honey. But [only] when that misconduct ripens, the fool comes to grief.

-- the implied contrast here is that the wise recognizes his own misconduct as misconduct before it ripens and "drops the iron ball" before it burns.
My commentary: the wise may not know, and can make mistakes - but he understands the limits of his knowledge and acts cautiously, in little steps, verifying his theory from received feedback and adjusting his model accordingly. The fool is assured of his (incorrect) knowledge and is attached to it. He does not actively look out for feedback and does not adjust his understanding and action. The fool is attached to his incorrect understanding.
This is how the fool is setup for suffering: because of his attachment to incorrect understanding which mismatches the reality and provides an incorrect basis for decision-making. The wise adjusts his model all the time to better match the reality, even as reality changes:
Imagine two Roombas (robotic vacuum cleaners), both with incorrect map of the house. One Roomba updates its internal map as it goes around and bumps into things. Another Roomba keeps going based on a wrong map. Which Roomba will clean the house better and which will likely get stuck?

Here is a dictionary definition: Bāla

Bāla1 (adj.) [cp. Sk. bāla (rarely Vedic, more freq. in Ep. & Class. Sk.); its orig. meaning is "young, unable to speak," cp. Lat. infans, hence "like a child, childish; infantile"] 1. ignorant (often with ref. to ignorance in a moral sense, of the common people, the puthujjana), foolish (as contrasted with paṇḍita cp. the Bālapaṇḍita -- sutta M iii.163 sq.; D ii.305 sq.; Vism 499, and contrasts at Sn 578; Dh 63, 64; Pv iv.332; Dhs 1300), lacking in reason, devoid of the power to think & act right.

For what it's worth I learned that a preschool teacher isn't supposed to think or say, "That is a good child" and "That is a bad child."
Instead if a child behaves well, "That is good behaviour" and if the child behaves badly, "That is bad behaviour".
Having an attitude like that, i.e. that it's behaviour ("misconduct is foolish"), instead of the person ("that person is or is not a fool"), means you don't have to try to discern some artificial distinction between "misconduct of a fool" versus "misconduct of a non-fool".

Reading the Sutta, 'fool' is described in many different situations and conditions. Sutta doesn't define exactly what is the meaning of 'fool'. It's us with our own understanding, try to understand Dhamma. Our understanding itself is subject to change.
Endowed with misconducts, someone is a fool. A person who is attached to worldly pleasure also a fool. Even those who have left home for the life of homelessness but is attached to jhana, deviate from true goal, is also considered as a fool, etc..
From my understanding, Buddha encourages us to strive to Further Shore. Be diligent and learn from those who are endowed with purity in conducts. Be compassionate to those who need our guidance as we would want to be treated.
Our practice in helping others should not affect and deviate us from the path, if we are not ready, it's good to take a step back. While learning and practicing, we need to keep wise companion and strive to the state 'devoid of foolishness'.
Edit: Just to add, the word 'fool' is translated into English as 'young child' or childish. It's figurative language to describe someone who is spiritually immature and certainly is not the same as 'fool' in English word.

From Dīgha Nikāya 16 - Mahāparinibbānasutta The Discourse about the Great Emancipation
The Gracious One said this, and after saying this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, said something more:
“Youths and also the old, fools and also the wise,
Rich and also the poor—all end in death.
Like an earthen vessel made by a potter
Small and great, that which is baked and unbaked,
All end in breakage, just so life ends in death.”

Then the Teacher, said something more:
“Well-matured, decayed, with little of my life remaining,
Having abandoned rebirth I will go, having made myself a refuge.
Be heedful, mindful, and virtuous, monks,
With well-reasoned thoughts, protect your minds.

Whoever in this Teaching and Discipline will live heedful,
Having given up the round of rebirths, he will put an end to suffering.”


text:
Did the Buddha form a monastery?
According to Wikipedia's Buddhist monasticism article, the Buddha formed the first monastery. There is no source, 'though. To quote:

Buddhist Monasticism is one of the earliest surviving forms of organized monasticism in the history of religion.
The order of Buddhist monks and nuns was founded by Gautama Buddha during his lifetime over 2500 years ago.

Ok, so it doesn't specifically say 'monastery' here but still, an order of monks and nuns, some sort of precursor to a monastery at least.
According to History World's History of Monasticism:

Leading his followers into holiness a generation after Mahavira, Buddha also organizes them into communities.

Is this just "according to tradition" or is there historical evidence of him forming a monastery/order/community: such as archaeological findings or non-religious texts? If yes, is there's anything left of the original or has it all branched out?

If Mahavira had already done it, how is Buddha the first to have created an order? Is that your question?

No, my question is if there is evidence that Buddha found a monestary.

@Buddho The question seems to be literally about a monastery (i.e.. a building), of which there might be archaeological remains.

@Buddho I misread the question, it's about whether there's "historical evidence" generally (i.e. including "non-religious texts") that he founded a monastic order. Furthermore is there "anything left of the original" (the original order, presumably) or has it (the order) all branched out (perhaps "branched" into diverse schools).

@ChrisW Thanks, I found the question unclear to be honest, I don't understand the significance of the reference to Mahavira or to the "first" monastery. I am also not a fan of seeking historical proof for belief systems, because they operate on different ideating systems.

@Buddho Yes, me too, but now I'm understanding the question as if the reference to Mahavira wasn't relevant, it just happened to be part of the quoted sentence from the articles which the OP was reading, i.e. it was the second clause that was important: "Buddha ... organizes them into communities". FWIW I feel sympathy towards wanting to know more about the historical Buddha.

The Buddha often taught in forest groves, the most famous being Isipatana (Deer park) where he delivered his first lecture (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta),

and Jetavana (Jeta Grove) (famously recorded in Buddhist epics as purchased by Anadapindika by paving the ground with gold) where there's still believed to be architectural remains of the Buddha's hut (Gandhakuti) from his stay there. Buddhist texts record that there were several imposing architectural structures constructed there, including an imposing arch, though almost none of it remains today.

Some of the chief buildings attached to the Jetavana are mentioned in the books by special names, viz., Mahāgandhakuti, Kaverimandalamāla, Kosambakuti and Candanamāla. SNA.ii.403. Other buildings are also mentioned - e.g., the Ambalakotthaka-āsanasālā (J.ii.246). According to Tibetan sources the vihāra was built according to a plan sent by the devas of Tusita and contained sixty large halls and sixty small. The Dulva also gives details of the decorative scheme of the vihāra (Rockhill: op. cit.48 and n.2).

source: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/j/jetavana.htm

There's also Vulture's peak, frequently referred in the suttas as one of the Buddha's favoured places to retreat to.

Many of the other locations that are referenced in the suttas, or where ruins of buildings still exist feature prominently on buddhist pilgrimage routes.
In later periods very prominent Buddhist Viharas, or universities functioned for over a 1000 years at the same spots, namely at Taxila (present day Pakistan) and Nalanda (present day India). They housed at their peak thousands of monks and novices, living and training for years together.
Eminent personages such as Shantideva, the 8th-century Indian Buddhist monk and scholar emerged from these universities.

Perhaps the communities didn't exactly live in "monasteries" during the Buddha's time (though Buddhist monasteries were built later). See:

What exactly were the parks that the Buddha spent time in?

Thai Forest Tradition

The Buddha was born in the forest, enlightened in the forest, taught in the forest, and passed away in the forest.

Monks are described as "going forth" and as being "homeless". If they did have shelters during the rainy season, perhaps they were modest, not the kind of building that would leave archaeological remains.

I might be wrong though: I don't know when the first monastery building is alleged to have built.
Something like the Mahabodhi Temple was apparently built maybe a hundred and fifty years after Buddha, when Buddhism became the state religion under the Emperor Ashoka, likewise the Maya Devi Temple.

The Buddha didn't find monastery, but when he start to sharing his teaching with people, they offered some places for the Buddha and his Disciple. Furthermore, he made a rule for monks and nuns which in raining season(3 month), they should be stay one place without wondering as usual.
(Mv I 13: Bimbisārasamāgamakathā — The Discussion of the Meeting with (King) Bimbisāra: The King of Magadha, followed by 120.000 householder an Brahmans, approached the Buddha and received the Dhamma. The King Bimbisāra of Magadha offered the first monastery for the Saṅgha and the Buddha allowed his Bhikkhus accepting monasteries.)

There are some archaeological evidence available, for example:

Abstract
This paper presents data from a recently documented hilltop Buddhist
complex called Mawasa, in the Raisen district of Madhya Pradesh,
central India, about 15 km to the east of the UNESCO World Heritage
site of Sanchi. It was documented during the Sanchi Survey Project, a
multi-phase exercise aimed at relating the histories of Buddhist
monasticism and urbanism as represented by the sequences at Sanchi and
nearby Vidisha respectively to archaeological patterns within their
hinterland. The dataset at Mawasa offers a well-preserved and
representative sample of many of the main architectural types found at
Phase II (c. 2nd - 1st century BC) Buddhist sites in the study area.
It includes a well-preserved stūpa, a carved slab with an early and
unusual Brahmi donative inscription, and a group of interesting
platformed monasteries with well-preserved internal details. All of
these provide important new insights into the nature of patronage and
the history and chronology of Buddhist monasticism and monastery
architecture during this early period of Buddhist propagation.
Further, an enigmatic structure, the precise function of which remains
unclear is located within the site. It may be a very early shrine of a
hitherto unstudied form, and thus has potential relevance for the
wider history of early temple architecture.
Julia Shaw (2011) Monasteries, Monasticism, and Patronage in Ancient
India: Mawasa, a Recently Documented Hilltop Buddhist Complex in the
Sanchi Area of Madhya Pradesh, South Asian Studies, 27:2, 111-130

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


text:
Can vipassana cause mental stress?
I tried Vipassana for some time. I feel some fear of death and reality of life. So what do I want to do? When I do anapanasathi, I feel relaxed.

Hi Dinesh and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

Vipassana is about seeing things as they are. If you fear death during vipassana meditation then be mindful of the fear. One has to let go of comfort when practicing Vipassana. Anapana leads to temporary comfort, calm and relaxation but one could not become liberated with an anapana practice alone.

The Buddha taught on how to come out of stress. This is systematised in the 4 Noble Truths.
All animals feel the fear of death. This also can be a source of stress.
Vipassana is a an integral part of overcoming stress. So keep up your pratice. Anapana especially creates more calmness and relaxation hence you can try this also. Anapana contains the full 4 foundations of mindfulness hence you can use this as means to liberation. See: ANAPANASATI - MINDFULNESS WITH BREATHING Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners by BUDDHADASA BHIKKHU, Right Mindfulness: Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
The cravat is to pratice the right way under proper guidance of a teacher. Then you can overcome stress. Wrongly practiced this might create stress. You can try some formally organised courses: http://dhamma.org/, IMC - International Meditation Centre, World Buddhist Directory

Vipassana literally means watching. Buddha wanted you to see your mind. You feel fear because you wanted to run away from death which is perfectly natural. If you feel stress or fear don't run away, accept it as it is and you will come to know that because of your acceptance, fear is vanished. Watch your stress. Just be a watcher. Classifying it as good or bad destroys the very essence of watching. Buddha wanted to get rid of all clinging, good or bad. Just accept it as it is.

Sure it can. The path is all about balance, that's why it's called the "middle way". Find a balance that works for you between calming meditation and investigative meditation (samatha/vipassana).

I think it will help if you practice a different version of vipassana.Death is not the only form of vipassana so here are some links that will teach you different practices of vipassana.And please note that what you are going through is not a bad side of vipassana,it is simply a matter of choosing the right one for you.once you have done that everything will be fine.
so here are the other forms of vipassana that you could practice without that particular discomfort.
Meditation of foulness
Meditation of elements
Meditation of nine cemetery contemplations

If you feel discomfort while meditating it is better to temporarily meditate "Meththa - The loving kindness meditation".

Learn more about "Abhidhamma" before you practice that discomforting method to understand what life is.

Hope this helped, Click on the blue highlighted words and they will open the links i have given.

Remember the path is not a one full of comfort,it is full of discomfort and hard tasks but each step forward brings much pleasure and freedom that can't be achieved by any other comfortable thing in life.


text:
Was Steve Jobs a Buddhist?
I've heard Steve Jobs described as a Buddhist but is that actually true? I know that he was married by Zen monks but did he actually have a Buddhist practice, meditate or was associated with a particular sangha. Or was it just more of an interest with him rather than him actually identifying as a Buddhist?

Why not just google him? I see dozens of articles. Including:

What Kind of Buddhist was Steve Jobs, Really? PLosOneBlog
Here's How Zen Meditation Changed Steve Jobs' Life And Sparked A Design Revolution. Business Insider
Steve Jobs' private spirituality now an open book. USAToday.

Take your pick. I don't see how StackExchange/Buddhism is going to help you here. Unless of course there is someone who writes answers that knew him personally, we're all reliant on what is in the media.

Fair point. I'm going to delete this question

Actually I've changed my mind. I don't think it's so bad thing that these links are on the site so I'm going to undelete. I take your point about the question being poor.


text:
Did the Buddha really say that "life is suffering"?
I often see the first noble truth (duḥkha) stated as "life is suffering". I have yet to come across a passage in a Buddhist text which phrases it like this - mostly they don't talk about "life" in this sense. So where does the idea that "life is suffering" come from?
There's been some discussion about the definition and translation of the word "dukkha" also. Is there a definitive definition?

The first place I heard/read the following is forgotten to me now, but an alternate someone suggested is "Life contains suffering." or "Life has much suffering."

Buddha did not teach that "life is suffering". IMO it should be "existence is suffering"

The first noble truth is actually amazingly relatable for the most part, as in no reasonable person could find fault with it. Since it doesn't appear to have been mentioned, I will post a full literal translation of the first noble truth from the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:

jātipi dukkhā
  Birth is dukkha
jarāpi dukkhā
  Old age is dukkha
byādhipi dukkho
  Sickness is dukkha
maraṇampi dukkhaṃ
  Death is dukkha
appiyehi sampayogo dukkho
  Association with the disliked is dukkha
piyehi vippayogo dukkho
  Separation from the beloved is dukkha
yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ
  Not obtaining one's wishes is dukkha
—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā
   dukkhā.
  In brief, the five clinging aggregates are dukkha

People have a tendency to focus overly much on the final one, which is terribly difficult to translate into english, it can be explained but can't be rendered in a pithy way which does justice to the meaning. Putting aside that which is difficult to translate, the rest of it is very straightforward, and are about the actual physical and emotional sufferings in life we can all relate to.
These points are easily understood at a conceptual level, and make an excellent starting point of investigation. For example with the emotional pain of "being separated from the loved", I noticed I would experience a piercing pain the chest in association with being rejected by someone I loved, and I would note that that person was not in fact stabbing me in the chest and that therefore the painful feeling warranted serious investigation since it did not make sense.
It should be noted that the first noble truth does not make irrational statements such as "Association with the beloved is suffering", we may reason that being separated from the loved is inevitable and so that kind of pleasure is like a honeyed barb, it is pleasant at first but will cut us later. Nevertheless the first noble truth does not deny the reality of that pleasure.

Yuttadhammo wrote,

I don't know of any example where the Buddha actually said "life is suffering".

and,

The first noble truth is simply "This is the truth of suffering." Nowhere in the enumeration of what is suffering does it refer to life.

"Life is suffering" isn't listed in fakebuddhaquotes; but it is the first item in a list of "Misunderstanding that arises from the teachings" on this page titled, "Common Buddhist Misunderstandings".

a) Life is suffering
The Buddha told us that "Life is Suffering". One who does not understand the Truth of this may think that life is meaningless and become negative and pessimistic. Actually, this theory is commonly misunderstood. People in society and even some Buddhists are trapped in this wrong and gloomy view.

To be honest this one actually claims that The Buddha told us that "Life is Suffering" though it then goes on to say that's misinterpreted.
The article is translated, perhaps from Chinese, in case that's relevant?

In this Article titled Life Isn't Just Suffering, Thanissaro Bhikku wrote,

You've probably heard the rumor that "Life is suffering" is Buddhism's first principle, the Buddha's first noble truth. It's a rumor with good credentials, spread by well-respected academics and Dharma teachers alike, but a rumor nonetheless. The truth about the noble truths is far more interesting.

In a comment to another answer, you wrote,

For example sukkhavedanā or "pleasant sensations" are also, in the broadest sense, dukkha! PTSD doesn't cope with that observation. For example: Nāññatra dukkhā sambhoti, nāññaṃ dukkhā nirujjhatī’’ti "Nothing other than dukkha arises, nothing other than dukkha ceases." This does not make sense if dukkha simply means "misery" or "sorrow". Because also we have experiences like ānanda, pamoda, pīti, sanutuṭṭha, sukha sukhita, somanassa.

Looking at the context of that quote (i.e. Vajira Sutta) I think that's a reference to dukkha as a characteristic of existence.
Given texts like Sabba Sutta perhaps it's reasonable (if a bit loose) to summarize "the aggregates" as "life" — and then the word "suffering" obviously comes as a translation of dukkha, though in context it might mean something else.
I suspect that (as well as being defined in isolation) the meaning of dukkha as it's used in a Buddhist context might be hinted at, defined, informed by or inferred from the second and third noble truths.
And that Vajira Sutta isn't easy to understand in isolation (i.e. if you're trying to use it as a stand-alone definition of dukkha) because I suspect that to understand it you should also understand identity-view.

You seem to have taken my quote from Vajirā out of context. I certainly did not quote it in isolation, I quoted it as part of a discussion about different ways of translation dukkha and made the point that "suffering" did not account for this passage (or others like it) where it's meaning probably is, as you hint, related to the big idea of the Sabba Sutta (which does not mention the khandhas as I recall, but the six āyatanas instead). Dukkha as lakṣana is an adjective. Which doesn't fit the grammar, does it? We're looking at dukkha as noun here.

In the first noble truth, the five clinging aggregates are defined as dukkha. Since all experiences are reduced to the five aggregates, I think the experience of all things (and not the things experienced themselves) is dukkha. At least this is how I have understood the First Noble Truth.
I don't have much knowledge about the translation/etymology of the word dukkha. However, if the modern usage of the word duḥkha in my native Nepali (which has roots in Saṃskṛtā and other Prākṛtas) is anything to go by, then it can be used to describe anything causing a minor annoyance to the biggest problems of life. From what I understand, it has similar connotations in other modern Indic languages as well. This, of course, does not mean that it was used similarly in Pāli.

Isn't it actually that "all experiences are reduced to the five clinging aggregates"? That is to say that the "experience of all things" is not dukkha, but the experience of clinging to things is.

I believe that your assertion that, if you look in the Pali Cannon that you do not find the phrase, "life is suffering," is absolutely correct. I am not a renown scholar or monk, but in my own studies and readings, I have also never once come across that phrase, so if it is merely a personal failure to discover it, it is both of ours, at the least!
To my understanding, what was taught was the noble truth of dukkha, which is, in its essence, that all phenomena are conditioned by dukkha. Translating that in a way that is packaged neatly for a western audience, a way which lends itself to easy digestion by the western view... this is, in my estimation, the most likely culprit for that bumper sticker variation, fast food for thought, but this is admittedly mere speculation.

The most general form of this is usually given in the Pali, as sabbam dukkham. This phrase has worked its way into several English explanations of the Buddha's teachings. Translated literally it would mean all pain. From my limited understanding of Pali it does not seem to be grammatically correct as a cohesive sentence, and would need to be taken out of context. The word pain here is often translated "suffering" or "unsatisfactory" or such because it's clear from both this and other writings that the statement means more than just "dukkha-dukkha", "pain pain", and in some ways it refers to a sickness which is upon humanity.
However, I have not yet found any sutta where the Buddha just says sabbaṃ dukkhaṃ as its own sentence, or something which would look more grammatically correct to me. The fragment is found often in a larger context, like sabbaṃ dukkhaṃ nijjiṇṇaṃ bhavissatī’ti ("all pain shall be exhausted" -- e.g. Cūladukkhakkhandha Sutta (Pali, English), Devadaha Sutta (Pali, English). But I have not seen the fragment by itself indicating that the Buddha really believes that everything is painful.
Another specious claim seen in English-speaking places is "The Buddha never refers to "sabbaṃ dukkhaṃ," only "sabbaṃ idaṃ dukkhaṃ," "all of this is suffering." It seems to have the same grammatical funkiness to it that I don't like, and I have not yet found a Pali source that says this precisely. One of the closest I got was Anguttara Nikaya III.61 (Pali),

Imâni cattâri ariyasaccânî ti bhikkave mayâ dhammo desito... pe...viññûhî ti--iti kho pan ' etaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñ c'etaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ? Channaṃ bhikkhave dhâtûnaṃ upâdâya gabbhassâvakkanti hoti okkantiyâ sati nâmarûpaṃ, nâmarûpapaccayâsaḷâyatanaṃ, saḷâyatanapaccayâ phasso, phassupaccayâ vedanâ. Vediyamânassa kho panâhaṃ bhikkhave idaṃ dukkhan ti paññâpemi ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo ti paññâpemi ayaṃ dukkhanirodho ti paññâpemi ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagâminî paṭipadâ ti paññâpemi.

Just to prove that I'm not pulling this out of nowhere, we have a translation into English:

'"There are these four noble truths" is a Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, blameless, not faulted by knowledgeable brahmans & contemplatives': Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Sustained by/clinging to the six properties, there is an alighting of an embryo. There being an alighting, there is name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. To one experiencing feeling I declare, 'This is stress.' I declare, 'This is the origination of stress.' I declare, 'This is the cessation of stress.' I declare, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'

So this is a straightforward statement of the four noble truths where instead of saying "everything is dukkha [pain/stress/suffering/sickness]" Gautama Buddha is saying "All of this phenomena-stuff (feelings due to being in the world) is dukkha," rather than "All life is dukkha."

I can't comment on whether or not Buddha said those exact words (I rather doubt it, since he didn't speak English). That translation has always seemed to me to be a bit off the mark and doesn't get to the heart of the teaching.
For me it's simple: All life is not necessarily suffering. But life CAN include a lot of suffering if one chooses to cling to things that are subject to change and cessation (which is pretty much everything in our world...thoughts, feelings, objects including our bodies, etc.)
Relax. Nothing lasts forever, including whatever is happening right here and right now. Let it go.

Technically speaking, the Buddha did not say that Life is suffering.  This is what he said (translations vary, so be warned)...

What is the Noble Truth of dukkha? Birth is dukkha, aging is
  dukkha, sickness is dukkha, dissociation from the loved is
  dukkha, not to get what one wants is dukkha: in short the five
  categories affected by clinging are dukkha.

First, dukkha is a word with no precise English translation, and it denotes things that we normally think of as suffering, but also things being "out of kilter".  In fact, it's etymology comes from a wheel being out of kilter.  I've seen dukkha translated as everything from stress to existential angst.  However, suffering is the most common translation I've read, but has always been followed by a disclaimer that it's not a completely adequate translation.
Second, the Buddha didn't say all life was dukkha.  Instead, he listed things that were dukkha (which covered much of life) and summed it up by saying the categories (aggregates/skhandas) subject to clinging were dukkha.  Now these skhandas account for all our experience, but it's only if they're subject to clinging that they are dukkha.  I imagine most Buddhists would say they are subject to clinging in most people and hence justify the expansion of dukkha to cover all life.
I hope this helps.

I may be a crazy linguist, but I find that etymology is tremendously helpful!  Thank you!

@CortAmmon my pleasure :).

"I teach about suffering and the way to end it"
Shakyamuni Buddha

That website quotes it with no reference to an original source

@Ryan Doesn't it sound like an alternate/loose translation of "Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress"?

Indeed :) references are just helpful in general, though.

Hello daemondave and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together a guide to help you get started here.

I believe that when the Buddha taught the 1st Noble Truth, he intended it to be interpreted by each listener based on the predisposition of their mind, therefore no interpretation is 'incorrect' - the main difference among various interpretations therefore is one of depth of insight.
There is not really such a thing as one unique truth - resonance with an insight depends on the framing context, such as the person's IQ score, culture and knowledge, and personality ... Each would experience the same insight differently.
Those who cannot accept that "Life is suffering" are welcome to use the interpretation "Existence means conflict".
Personally, I like "Life is suffering" because it helps combat the false expectation of wishy-washy wishful nonsense about "perfect balance", "perfect harmony", "everything is good"...
And I like "Existence means conflict" because that's also the insight of Daoism, Sufism (Islam), Vedanta (Hinduism), and yes, also of the Kybalion (hermetic Christian scripture) - and also Kiekegaard, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Schopenhauer, Kant, and Homer Simpson  ;-)

As for translations, the word "dukkha" has a different meaning in the different contexts of 'dukkha-vedana' (painful/unpleasant feeling); 'dukkha-lakkana' (characteristic of unsatisfactoriness) & 'upadana-dukkha' (mental torment due to clinging).
The Buddha certainly taught all conditioned things are unsatisfactory (dukkha) due to impermanence but this is not related to the 1st noble truth, which is about the mental suffering that originates from craving & becoming. A Buddha never stops experiencing dukkha-vedana & dukkha-lakkana but has ended, forever, the dukkha of the 1st noble truth.
The teachings at SN 22.59, SN 22.85 and Dhammapada 278 should make it abundantly clear that Buddhas always see (experience) unsatisfactoriness. In SN 22.85, it is correctly said the aggregates of an arahant are unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory means 'cannot bring lasting happiness'. Impermanent things cannot bring lasting happiness but impermanent things are not 'suffering' or 'stressful'.
A rock or tree is not suffering or stressful. But a rock or tree is unsatisfactory since it cannot bring lasting happiness. Only Nibbana (non-clinging) is true happiness. .

The short introduction at the top of the Dukkha page of AccessToInsight.org is an appropriate comment to your question:

No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and
subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many
translations of the word have been used ("stress,"
"unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a
given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too
comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the
entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of
one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed
and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as
you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think
again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper,
subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that.

This is a technical term that goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the word in Pali.
The canonical definition is:

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the
unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha;
not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short,
the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
— SN 56.11

That's quite self-explanatory. But if you want a further explanation, just look at the Dukkha page for Ven. Sariputta's elaboration.
Ven. Bodhi's comments from the forum on Understanding Dukkha:

In the Pali suttas, the discourses of the Buddha, the word dukkha is
used in at least three senses. One, which is probably the original
sense of the word dukkha and was used in conventional discourse
during the Buddha’s time, is pain, particularly painful bodily
feelings. The Buddha also uses the word dukkha for the emotional
aspect of human existence. There are a number of synonyms that
comprise this aspect of
dukkha: soka, which means sorrow; aryadeva, which is lamentation;
dolmenasa, which is sadness, grief, or displeasure; and upayasa,
which is misery, even despair. The deepest, most comprehensive aspect
of
dukkha is signified by the term samkara-dukkha, which means the dukkha that is inherent in all conditioned phenomena simply by virtue of the fact that they are conditioned.

This means that the technical term dukkha has a superficial meaning which is pain, suffering, stress, lamentation, sorrow, grief, despair, anguish, dissatisfaction, encountering that which is disliked, being separated from that which is liked, and not getting something you want.
However, the technical term dukkha also has a deeper meaning in sankhara-dukkha - which is that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, and therefore is a cause of suffering, because "they cannot provide stable happiness and security" (see below). It is for this reason that some people say "unsatisfactoriness" is a better term to use than "suffering" to explain the deeper meaning.
The superficial meaning covers only the negative experiences, while the deeper meaning covers the fact that positive and neutral experiences cannot be sustained forever, and negative experiences cannot be avoided forever.
In "Anicca Vata Sankhara", Ven. Bodhi comments:

The most important fact to understand about sankharas, as
conditioned formations, is that they are all impermanent:
"Impermanent, alas, are formations." They are impermanent not only in
the sense that in their gross manifestations they will eventually come
to an end, but even more pointedly because at the subtle, subliminal
level they are constantly undergoing rise and fall, forever coming
into being and then, in a split second, breaking up and perishing:
"Their very nature is to arise and vanish." For this reason the Buddha
declares that all sankharas are suffering (sabbe sankhara dukkha)
— suffering, however, not because they are all actually painful and
stressful, but because they are stamped with the mark of transience.
"Having arisen they then cease," and because they all cease they
cannot provide stable happiness and security.
To win complete release from suffering — not only from experiencing
suffering, but from the unsatisfactoriness intrinsic to all
conditioned existence — we must gain release from sankharas. And
what lies beyond the sankharas is that which is not constructed, not
put together, not compounded. This is Nibbana, accordingly called the
Unconditioned — asankhata — the opposite of what is sankhata, a
word which is the passive participle corresponding to sankhara.
Nibbana is called the Unconditioned precisely because it's a state that is neither itself a sankhara nor constructed by sankharas; a
state described as visankhara, "devoid of formations," and as
sabbasankhara-samatha, "the stilling of all formations."

There is no such thing as the "five clinging aggregates" because the five aggregates do not cling. Only one of the aggregates, when under the influence of ignorance, clings. The proper translation is: "clinging to the five aggregates is dukkha". The entire problem of suffering is summarised as clinging. Birth, death, etc, are only dukkha when they are mixed with clinging. Suttas such as SN 22.1, SN 22.48 & MN 140 make it very clear the sole problem is clinging. .

sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā - which is often (very lazily) understood to mean that life is suffering. On the basis of that translation some people say “The Buddha was wrong, because lot’s of nice things happen all the time.”
What the words  sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā mean is that all (sabba) conditioned phenomena (sańkhārā) are dukkhā. Conditioned phenomena are all things that come into existence because of causes and conditions, and which break down, fall apart, or die when the causes and conditions necessary for their continuation are no longer sufficient.
Dukkhā is most often translated as ‘suffering.’ But that’s not really an accurate translation of the word at all, and over the past twenty or thirty years translators have begun looking for more accurate translations, such as dis-ease, stress, or dissatisfaction. As for me, I find the etymology of the word to be helpful at getting at the meaning of the word. Its root refers to an an axle hole which isn’t properly centered on the wheel. Consequently, a ride in the cart or wagon would be quite uncomfortable, as the lopsided wheel rose, and then fell with force - but the direction of the wagon itself would also be affected; one would constantly be being pulled off course, as the wheels would not be properly aligned. It is this lack of alignment that is being referred to in these lines.
Translated into actual experience, as long as one’s perception of reality does not align with things as they actually are, we will suffer. Our problem is that we tend to regard things that are impermanent as though they are lasting; things that depend on causes and conditions as though they exist independently of causes and conditions, and that we ourselves also exist at some essential level as some unchanging (“I’ve always been me!”), real, thing.
As for whether there are/were Buddhist sects that de-emphasized suffering, I'm not aware of any.

Some years ago, in private correspondence, I asked Prof. Gombrich about this interpretation of dukkha as having the word "axle" at its root. He answered that it was nonsense. Here's what he said: "Let me first cope with your etymological query. This is a commonly heard piece of nonsense. One of the several meanings of the word kha is "axle" (not wheel). At least that is so in Sanskrit. ... If you add to that the normal prefix du- you get the meaning "having a bad axle"... he further said (next comment...)

Gombrich quote continued: "Playing this kind of game with words goes back to ... India in the 5th century B.C.... It is not etymology in the modern sense but an attempt to fathom the secrets of words and thus of the universe. Though Buddhaghosa does it too, you can see that it is really based on the notion, spurned by the Buddha, that language has a profound inherent connection with reality."

Buddha said that there is a suffering in life which he confirms. And it is not a imagination. And he says that sufferings comes from avidya / avijja or ignorance. And he has given eight fold path and middle way / madhyam marg to overcome sufferings in the life.
In short there is presence of suffering and we can overcome it through eliminating the ignorance.

Doctor Conte a psychologist said there are 2 types of people in this world.

People with issue (duḥkha)
Dead people (no issue)

He studied Buddhism Zen if i am not mistaken. He has many videos to share how to deal with this suffering or issues too.


text:
Ledi Sayadaw's "Anatta Dipani" in English? (And Ledi/Saya Thet relationship)
Just asking if someone is aware of a complete English translation of Anattadīpanī by Ledi Sayadaw. While an extract is contained in "A Collection of Manuals of Buddhism by Ledi Sayadaw" I was unable to locate a full translation.
The reason for my interest is the following:
According Braun's The Birth of Insight, Anattadīpanī was focused on vedana contemplation (pag. 132):

Even the Manual on No-Self, which takes the feelings (vedana) as its subject matter, still begins with an explanation of meditative mindfulness of the body (kayagatasati) and its physical elements as a preparatory exercise.

And according the book A Brief Biography of Anagam Sayagyi U Thet And His Teaching (pag. 124), U Thet found inside that book (as well as in Bhāvanādīpanī) a confirmation of his experience and "technique" which he later would pass to U Ba Khin and finally would arrive to Goenka:

He [Saya Thet] was quite satisfied with his new-found insightful perceptions of the continually changing nature of rupa and nama. But his findings need to be verified or validated by some authority. [...] Saya Thet read "Anatta Dipani" and "Bavana Dipani", the books he had brought back from his home, and checked up all his findings by personal experience. He felt as if the [Ledi] Sayadaw was teaching him at close quarters. The concepts, explanations and instructions heard over ten years ago came back bit by bit, and checked well against his personal findings.

Bhikkhu Pesala kindly agreed to share with us a draft of an English translation of Anatta Dipani.
The final version may later be published in his Web site, together with other translations of Ledi Sayadaw's works.
At the moment many drafts are available on http://www.aimwell.org/LediSayadaw/.

Can you provide the complete references from Braun, and is the other U Htay Hlaing? I have never read anything like a complete technique being passed to Saya Thet Gyi. Following is our take (shared here from a draft) concerning the question of Saya Thet Gyi's teachings:

There are very few surviving records of Saya Thet Gyi’s instructions,
  discourses, or details about his own meditation practice and
  development.  Erik Braun examined Saya Thet Gyi’s famous student
  Sayagyi U Ba Khin’s biography and teaching, and this analysis gives a
  window into Saya Thet. Braun notes that while U Ba Khin’s teachings
  reference Abhidhamma concepts and the observation of impermanence of
  physical sensations, “[h]is teachings…simplify the technique further
  than Ledi had.” For example, U Ba Khin mentions kalāpas “rather than
  the four elements, which together comprise the kalāpas… This method is
  not a dramatic divergence from Ledi, but such a fine-tuning points to
  the fact that meditation teachers who considered his teachings to be
  authoritative did not necessarily preserve exactly the same approach
  to meditation.”
In contrast to Ledi Sayadaw, who developed remarkable mastery of many
  key areas of Buddhist scholarship and practice, Saya Thet Gyi’s
  activities were centered on formal meditation instruction. Because he
  did not possess the level of mastery or textual authority of Ledi
  Sayadaw, he was more limited in how he could best disseminate the
  Buddha’s teachings. In understanding where Saya Thet fits into the
  overall Ledi framework, Anauk Sayadaw (အေနာက္ ဆရာေတာ, who himself
  teaches in the Saya Thet tradition) referred to the concept of Ledi
  “mu” and Saya Thet Gyi “ni.” This refers on one hand to the written
  oeuvre and scriptural mastery of Ledi Sayadaw, and on the other to the
  specific meditation technique as taught by Saya Thet Gyi, which fit
  within the general constructs laid out by his teacher. Expanding
  further, Anauk Sayadaw noted that within the enormous breadth of
  Ledi’s teachings, Saya Thet Gyi fashioned a particular and specific
  way to practice, of which Ledi Sayadaw gave his explicit stamp of
  approval.
At his tazaung, Saya Thet Gyi offered no structured courses of a
  specified time length (indeed, the very concept of formal “courses”
  likely did not exist in those days), but rather yogis were invited to
  come and practice for however long they chose, with many staying
  between one to two weeks. Instructions were not formalized and
  depended more on the teacher-student relationship, as well as the
  student’s own background, aptitude, and progress. When a new student
  arrived, Saya Thet Gyi would begin by teaching ānāpāna, and only if he
  felt the student was ready would he switch to Vipassanā practice,
  sometimes directing them to focus on the awareness of anicca at the
  top of the head, or center of the chest, while doing so.
In this way one can see how Saya Thet Gyi occupied the middle station
  between the giants of Ledi Sayadaw and Sayagyi U Ba Khin, who both
  transformed Buddhist practice in unprecedented ways. Braun notes that
  the “most salient difference between Ledi and U Ba Khin… is not in the
  theory of meditation but in the practicalities of its teaching. In
  sharp contrast to Ledi’s more flexible approach to meditation
  instructions, U Ba Khin established a rigid timetable for practice
  throughout the day at his center.” Thus, while Saya Thet Gyi may not
  have turned his tazaung into a fully functioning meditation center
  churning out regular courses as U Ba Khin eventually did, he plays an
  important intermediary position, by narrowing down Ledi’s teachings—
  in large part due to the simple fact that Saya Thet did not have the
  same breadth and depth of knowledge as his teacher.
Regarding his teaching style, Saya Thet Gyi did not meditate all day
  with students, and when in the tazaung with them, he spent most of his
  time in the single cell, from which he sent mettā. He typically came
  in the mornings to check in and give instructions, at which time he
  would sit upon a small raised platform in front of the three Buddha
  statues still existing today. Aware of the sensitivities of being a
  lay teacher and deeply respectful of the Saṅgha, he was careful not to
  sit in anything that resembled a formal monk’s seat. In fact, he
  forewent a higher seat of any kind because he did not wish to put
  himself in a position of power or being above others. And if a monk
  came to learn from him, he was sure to pay formal respects prior to
  teaching, and would see that the monk sat higher than him. On many
  days Saya Thet Gyi gave no discourses at all, but only meditation
  instructions, so that students would focus entirely on the practice.
In his early days as a teacher, he tended to advise students to stay
  with the mindfulness of breathing for several years, but as he
  progressed as a teacher he was said to bring students to change the
  focus of their attention after less time, sometimes as short as a
  week. To assist newcomers in improving mindfulness of their body
  elements, Saya Thet Gyi sometimes forbade yogis to shower up till or
  on the day when Vipassanā instructions were given.
Some of the few anecdotes that survive suggest how much Saya Thet Gyi
  tailored his teachings to the individual student. For one student who
  was quite learned in the Abhidhamma and had extensive intellectual
  understanding of samatha and jhana practice, Saya Thet Gyi counseled
  him to be aware of the breath, either by counting breaths or feeling
  its touch.  After one week, he taught the man vipassanā. For another
  student who was in his older years and in ill-health, he instructed
  him in the practice of ānāpāna along with odata kasina (developing
  concentration via a continuous focus on the color white). While the
  primary intention was to help the man accumulate paramis for the next
  life, the practice eventually led him to understand the four elements;
  and he also reported some relief from his heart disease.

Thanks for the answer, very useful. To be clear, neither of both authors says that U Thet learnt the technique from a Ledi's book. I added the relevant quotations and a link to the second book (by Ledi Pannasiha). You can read an introduction here (I'm going to add some comments if a form of an answer, given its length)

This conversation (discussion related to this answer) has been moved to chat.

@robermann, Shwe Lan Ga Lay, wondering if you can merge some of the fasts discussed in the deleted answers and chat with this answer so some of the facts are available to the general public.

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala Tried with a review, but was discarded by peer review, sorry.

No worries but nevertheless great to see people from the aware of the Ledi, Sunlun, etc. traditions. Also like to get to know you two better.

@suminda-sirinath-s-dharmasena  We are working on the Part 2 of the book: https://store.pariyatti.org/Myanmar-Burma-Guidebook_c_463.html


text:
Where can I find an English translation of the Buddhavatamasaka Sutra?
I just finished re-watching this lecture by Jan Nattier, an academic expert in Mahayhana Buddhism. She mentioned that the 10 Bhumis in the 26th chapter of the Avatamsaka had a predecessor called the Buddavatamasaka which had a more coherent enumeration of 10 Bhumis and had steps that mere mortals could follow.
I can't find it it anywhere. Wikipedia does mention the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, but that appears to be the free standing later version of the 10 Bhumis.
The Cleary translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is the later version of the 10 Bhumis that is mostly opaque literary bombast, describes the results of the steps but not the steps and other than bodhicitta, doesn't describe any steps that mere mortals can engage in in this life.

Please post the time stamp where Jan discusses this text. I'd like to hear her pronounce the name of the text and listen for any extra information.

Okay, with some help I tracked down Jan Nattier's paper on the Buddhavatamsaka which summarizes the 10 Bhumis. The original text provided 20 bullet points for each Bhumi. I'll summarize the summary.

See the Buddhas of the 10 directions, learns their qualities.  (Sounds to me like a meditative visualization exercise similar to the Pure Land visualizations)
Maitri/Metta practice. Seeing oneself as others. Dharma study.
Detachment from experience.
Determining that everything is empty.
Working for the benefit & enlightenment of all beings, even though they are empty.
Working on equanimity. More work on seeing things as empty.

This is the cut off point for non-retrogression.

Can switch back and forth between seeing things conventionally and seeing things as empty.
Prince stage-- cultivates siddhis, various magical powers.
Crown prince stage-- cultivates siddhis, various magical powers.
Establishes the dharma in various other worlds, cultivates various siddhis.

So so everything up to the 7th Bhumi is something that could be done without being reborn elsewhere or as a superbeing.  The middle Bhumis, 4-7 sound like variations on the same thing. This is a quality of the Avatamsaka in general-- the authors are always trying to hit a list of 10 things, and sometimes they run out of items and just repeat one a few times.

To the best of my knowledge there is no other translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.
As far as text called Buddhāvataṃsaka - there is nothing in the Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon; nor in GRETIL - Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages.
This suggests that no Sanskrit manuscript survives. Searching for a Sanskrit name in the Chinese Canon is not quite impossible, but very very difficult.
Responding to the comment:
Taisho Edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka (with links to the online CBETA version):

T280 佛說兜沙經; Scripture on the Original Deeds of the Bodhisattva as Explained by the Buddha (Ch 7 & 8 of Avataṃsaka)
T282 佛說菩薩求佛本業經; Original Deeds of Bodhisattvas Seeking Buddhahood. (Ch 11)
T282 菩薩十住行道品; Book on Bodhisattvas’ Ten Abodes in the Practice of the Way (Ch 15)

But these are not all attributed to Lokakṣema. The last looks most promising, but is attributed to Dharmarakṣa in some sources. However see Nattier: A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms Periods. This article questions the traditional attributions and assigns T280, T282 and T283 to Lokakṣema. The last looks most promising as a source for the Daśabhūmi or 10 Levels, but I cannot see any English translations online. Unfortunately very little of the Chinese Tripiṭaka is yet available in English. Though there is a Numata Foundation project under way to translate it all, it will take decades.

Another clue from someone taking notes on the same lecture. "taisho 280, 282, 283 can be reconstructed to be Lokaksema’s translation of the Buddhavamtasaka." http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=4182

I updated my answer to include this info.

I tracked down Nattier's paper that summarized the Sutra she was referring to & posted it as an answer. Thanks for the help researching!


text:
Do modern-day Buddhists take "Mara The Evil One" literally?
I find that a good number of believing Christians and Muslims think that Satan literally exists and is a very real actor in the real world.
Is "Mara the Evil One, the Tempter" a rhetoric device in Buddhist tales -- a personification to enable the construction of a certain kind of parable?
Or is "Mara" understood by contemporary Buddhists as an evil being who actually exists in the physical plane that we inhabit?

Isn't this opinion based?

related question: Is Mara a real being or something internal, produced by our own minds?

Many fearless Devas are actually under the possession of Mara, since he is the fuehrer of the Devas.

There are 5 kinds of Maras. The fifth is Devaputta Mara who is an actual being(god) who controls a portion of the paranimmita-vasavatti heaven. But he is not similar to the Satan concept in Christianity. Mara is not an eternal being. Unlike Satan, Mara is not against doing good deeds. He at times encourages beings to do good deeds and prolong their Samsara. Mara is only against attaining Nibbana. It is a position taken up by different beings from time to time. During the time of Buddha Kakusandha who was the first Buddha in this eon, venerable Moggallana himself was the Mara(Dusi). The Mara during the time of Gautama Buddha is his nephew who took up the position when Dusi perished trying to attack the chief disciple of the Buddha Kakusandha.
There's a whole section in the Samyutta Nikaya, listing the Mara's encounters with the Buddha who was already enlightened. If Mara is merely a personification of defilements, there can be no encounters with enlightened beings as they have already removed all defilements. Refusing to accept Mara as an actual being seems to be nothing more than the discomfort of accepting the existence of heavenly and hell beings.

It would be good to add that Maras releam is the most plessurable in all hevens. You go there by doing the best of the good deeds. Mara truly bileave that Nirwana is a waste when you can like him do good karma and come to his world. He is not evil, he means well but is dellutioned just like most of us and thats why he has beef with buddha and his followers.

@RRR Delusion is evil. Mara did many other evil things to trouble the Buddha and the Sangha. One time he threw a stone at the Buddha's chief disciples and made him bleed from the head.

Mara operate on the same model of harming few for the good of many. IMO His intentions are no different than some one wanting you to get a good education and good job, may be start a business so that you can enjoy material benefits. Buddha as opposite views and that's why hostility.

@RRR Be very careful with your line of thought. It sounds like you are becoming a fan of Mara. There is no way you can make such a vague and arbitrary comparison of a being who is trying to induce greed/lust, hatred, delusion in all sensual beings to a man who wants to study and make a living.

I am no fan of anyone. But I like to see what make people behave a specific way. Remember that even mara has no inherant existance or nature. Everything is cause and effect.

Cause and effect does not imply that there's no evil. In any case the comparison is not correct

Of course, I can't speak for all modern-day Buddhists, but for myself, those that I have learned from, and those that I have known, we believe that Mara is the metaphorical personification of the forces that oppose enlightenment. I've not met any Buddhist who believes that Mara is a literal personal being.

Thanks for this straightforward answer. I'm trying to find the best way to translate "mara" in the Dhammapada into something that makes sense without further explanation or metaphysical leaps, it seems like "temptation" or "defilements" are the closest ideas for "He who lives without looking for pleasures, his senses well controlled, moderate in his food, faithful and strong, him Mara will certainly not overthrow, any more than the wind throws down a rocky mountain."

But at the same time, I'm playing with the meaning of the text if I translate it to "temptation" right? The Dhammapada is specifically referring to a deity, not to any concept embodied in the deity? I want to write it as "If you stay focused on impurities and the foul, are well controlled in your senses, moderate in diet, full of faith and energy, you will certainly not be overwhelmed by Mara (temptation), just as the wind cannot shake a mountain of rock."

Okay, for clarity while still honoring the original intent of the text, I will translate it as "you will certainly not be overwhelmed by Mara the corrupter" as implied by this answer:  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2706/12803 So mara remains a personification, but I hint at the implied meaning.

Mara is simply the gatekeeper of Samsara, it wants to keep all life in an endless cycle of death and rebirth without beginning or ending. This cycle is full of unresolved karma and is full of suffering. Mara wants to keep you trapped in this cycle. It wants you to listen to evil thoughts and behave badly in life so you die. It absolutely hates people trying to escape from death and those who are enlightened. Think of Mara like this: Everything we see is the result of our thoughts. Now sit still, meditate, try not to think anything, seperate your thoughts in good and evil. You will find Mara soon enough... It will tell you "why am I sitting here doing nothing?". Where do you think that thought comes from?

I would go so far as to say that neither Christians nor Muslims agree that Satan is a real being in the material world.  After all, during the Holocaust, some Christians hid Jews in their homes.  If Satan was actually an invisible person with eyes and ears and feet and a mouth, surely it would have been impossible to hide Jews from the Nazis.
The Buddha spoke against the caste system; he spoke against astrology, horoscopes, palm reading, fortune telling, faith healing or prayers made for the sick.  He spoke against holy lands, consecrated objects or lucky amulets.  He never claimed to perform miracles. Whenever he spoke of gods or spirits, it was to teach people how to benefit from their example; you, too, can enjoy the good fortune of the gods.
Belief in an intervening devil is a fearful belief.  The Buddha never taught people to fear a benevolent creator god, much less a devil.


text:
Doing versus not doing what others tell you to do
Is not doing what others tell you to do a wholesome or unwholesome act?
When someone tells you to do something, and you decline, when it's a wholesome act and when it's an unwholesome act from your part?
When someone tells you to do something, and you accept, when it's a wholesome act and when it's an unwholesome act from your part?
Example 1:
Person A looks at the lawn in front of the house and tells to person B: "The yard is ugly with that high lawn. Go mow that lawn now!"
Person B looks at the lawn and says to person A: "The yard is just the yard. The lawn is just the lawn. Neither cannot be beautiful nor ugly. The lawn is not too high. I'll mow the lawn when it grows higher."
Person A, angrily: "No, you mow the lawn now because it's too high and the yard is ugly with that lawn!"
Person B, calmly: "The yard cannot be ugly nor beautiful. The yard is just the yard. The lawn is not too high. If you think it's too high, mow it yourself."
Note: Both persons have the same capabilities and resources to mow the lawn and no time constraints.
Person A is angry with person B. Person B is calm, unaffected.
Which person has acted wholesomely or unwholesomely , A, B or both? Why?
Example 2:
Person A looks at the lawn in front of the house and tells to person B: "The yard is ugly with that high lawn. Go mow that lawn now!"
Person B looks at the lawn and says to person A: "The yard is just the yard. The lawn is just the lawn. Neither cannot be beautiful nor ugly. Yes, the lawn is very very high. I'll mow the lawn when it grows higher."
Person A, angrily: "No, you mow the lawn now because it's too high and the yard is ugly with that lawn!"
Person B, calmly: "The yard cannot be ugly nor beautiful. The yard is just the yard. Yes, the lawn is very very high, but I'll wait until it grows higher. If you think it's too high, mow it yourself."
Note: Both persons have the same capabilities and resources to mow the lawn and no time constraints.
Person A is angry with person B. Person B is calm, unaffected.
Which person has acted wholesomely or unwholesomely, A, B or both? Why?
Example 3:
Same example as example 1, but person A takes a pistol and kills 10 persons out of his anger.
Has person B acted more or less wholesomely or unwholesomely than in example 1?
Example 4:
Same example as example 2, but person A takes a pistol and kills 10 persons out of his anger.
Has person B acted more or less wholesomely or unwholesomely than in example 2?
Example 4:
Same example as examples 1 and 2, but:
Person A tells madly at person B: "Go mow the lawn now!!"
Person B clearly sees person A is mad and will probably kill someone because of that madness, and because person A sees person B could go to hell because of his actions, person A says: "Ok ok. I'll mow the lawn. No problem." and mows the lawn.
Person A is happy. Person B is calm, unaffected.
The question is, what would happen if person B would not give in to the demands of person A? Would that be an unwholesome act for person B?

In all examples both acted suboptimally.
It looks like person B should learn to understand and appreciate other people's perspectives. Perhaps he should say: "I understand why you worry about the lawn. It does look very high by normal standards. The normal standards are X inches and the lawn is Y. But I am not declining to mow it out of laziness, believe me. I think at this moment it is advantageous to everybody, including you to not mow it. Here is why: A) B) C).
In other words, don't drive people mad with your "superior understanding". If your understanding is better than others' -- invest your energy in teaching.
Also, always remember that people (including yourself!) are rarely truly objective. Instead they often act in line with their interests, or with the group interests, or with the "party line" or with their philosophy. It helps to rephrase your understanding in that context as to help them relate.
One of the very prominent characteristics of Buddha's method was to always work within the person's perspective, not against it.
Speak in terms of what they know, what they value, what they have experienced before - then they will hear and understand.

Here is a definition of 'wholesome act':

Righteous conduct is the observance of the ten good actions (kusala-kammapatha) in thought, word and deed: freeing the mind of greed, ill-will and wrong views; avoiding speech that is untruthful, slanderous, abusive and frivolous; and the non- committal acts of killing, stealing and sexual misconduct.

I think it's up to you to apply that to real-life scenarios.
That sutta which I referenced above also has some guideliness for employer/employee relationships.