text:
How many Tibetan monks practiced meditation in "old Tibet"?
One aspect of the notion of "Buddhist Modernism" is that in modern history (ancient times aside) even the Theravada monkhood, let alone the laity, did not generally meditate, until the Burmese/Thai revival due to Mahasi Sayadaw and a few others in the 19th and early 20th century. (http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/)
Yet, there is still the question of Tibetan monks, given the vigor of that tradition back to its introduction into Tibet. McMahan suggests (without any references!) that very few of them meditated:

Tibetan forms of meditation have gone rather abruptly from being the
  province of a small number of specialist monks in Himalayan hermitages
  to being offered widely to the public in countries all over the globe.
  (McMahan, David L. (2008-10-17). The Making of Buddhist Modernism (p.
  187). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.)

But my impression is that in "old Tibet", that is pre-1950's, a fairly large fraction of the (very numerous) monkhood did practice meditation, via tantric sadhana and/or mahamudra.
Does anybody have actual references bearing on this? I realize there will be no quantified data, but how about biographies, reminiscences and other historical literature?

Thanks David thats a fascinating link for anyone interested in history although many of the points are highly debated.

Which link -- McMahan or Chapman? There's a lot of material behind both. I selected Chapman's as a succinct summary of the meditation issue in Buddhist Modernism, though it is not a scholarly piece with references.

The Chapman link, I understand is not necessarily a scholarly piece but still a good read.

Post 1950s, this CBC article says that meditation is an important practice of (at least) modern lamas: The monks, we believe, are the Olympic athletes of certain kinds of mental training," Davidson says. "These are individuals who have spent years in practice. To recruit individuals who have undergone more than 10,000 hours of training of their mind is not an easy task and there aren't that many of these individuals on the planet."

Only just pre-1950s, the current Dalai Lama was born in 1935.
Starting half-way through this page, At Home With the Dalai Lama, is an account of his learning to meditate (and probably of being forced to learn to meditate), at age 8.

I also know that he wasn't a particularly good student when he was
  young. He had a mercurial temper and was impulsive. Monastic
  disciplines like meditation and scriptural study did not come
  naturally to him.
"Around seven or eight," the Dalai Lama told me in an earlier meeting,
  a mischievous gleam in his eyes, "I had no interest in study. Only
  play. But one thing: my mind since young, quite sharp, can learn
  easily. This brings laziness. So my tutor always keep one whip, a
  yellow whip, by his side. When I saw the yellow whip, the holy whip
  for holy student the Dalai Lama, I studied. Out of fear. Even at that
  age I know, if I study, no holy pain."
Despite his reluctance to study when he was a child, the Dalai Lama
  applied himself every morning. With perseverance and self-control, he
  learned to sit still for long periods. Gradually he was better able to
  control his errant impulses. Meditation and study came before play;
  delayed gratification became a matter of course.

Reading this gives me the impression that the curriculum which the Dalai Lama learned was passed down through successive generations/incarnations.
The Speech Delivered by His Holiness 14th Dalai Lama to the
Second Gelug Conference
(Dharamsala, June 12th 2000) says,

Now it is about six hundred years since Lama Tsong Khapa lived in Tibet. About three hundred years
  earlier, Dipamkara Atisha founded the great Kadam tradition. It was this school that Lama Tsong Khapa
  used as his foundation. He started a tradition that emphasised tantric study that concentrated on practices
  of the three deities, Guhyasamaja, Heruka Chakrasamvara and Yamantaka.

“May this tradition of the Conqueror, Losang Dragpa,
     That teaches the outward, calm and controlled demeanour of the hearer,
     And the internal poise associated with the two stages of the yogic practitioner,
     And adopts both Sutra and Tantra as mutually complementary paths flourish.”

And as to what is achieved through the adoption of such a practice, we have the words:

“May this tradition of the Conqueror, Losang Dragpa
     That takes the emptiness explained in the Causal Vehicle (sutra),
     And the great bliss that is achieved through the Resultant Means (tantra),
     Conjoined with the essence of the collection of eighty-four thousand teachings flourish.”4

Having all of these features then, this doctrine is a consummate one. It incorporates study, contemplation
  and meditation in balanced, equal measure and this is what makes it so remarkable. When it comes to
  detailed study of the great texts, it is the Sakya and Gelug systems which are the most developed.

That's right, Sakya and Gelug emphasize study and philosophical analysis, while Kagyu emphasizes practice, including the practice of meditation, which would make it the most meditating of Tibetan schools.

This is a bit of a misconception. Gelug and Sakya practitioners do meditate quite a lot, and they also study and debate texts and philosophical matters. But so do Kagyu and Nyingma monks. Relatively speaking, the Gulugpa and Sakyapa do "emphasize" study, but it's more a matter of the importance than the time spent. Also, their study and debate are arguably a form of meditation and also feed into sitting meditation as topics to contemplate. In any case, they are as resolutely aimed at enlightenment as the Nyingma and Kagyu.

I just ran across this recent quote by His Holiness The Dalai Lama which hints that meditation is considered a core activity and skill for Tibetan monks, rather than McMahan's "the province of a small number of specialist monks in Himalayan hermitages"
. (Emphasis added.)
http://www.ozy.com/c-notes/the-dalai-lama-on-china-the-future-of-tibet/34231.article?utm_source=A1&utm_medium=pp&utm_campaign=pp

Dalai Lama:
We have trained some monks here in India who have returned to Tibet.
  But this is rare. The danger is that religion becomes a mere ritual.
  It’s not sufficient to ring a bell, you know. Monks have to master the
  doctrine and the meditation. They need to be good in both. This
  requires thorough training.

Of course, this may be interpreted as a critique of "old Tibet" as too reliant on "mere ritual", with the emphasis on meditation a post-diaspora reform. I am still inclined to believe that many if not most monks in Tibet did meditate seriously, that is, the culture of enlightenment remained vigorous in Tibet in a way that it was apparently lost in Theravada societies prior to its modern reinvigoration.
BTW, this is a fascinating interview for other reasons, most notably...

OZY:
So the Tibetans do not need a Dalai Lama anymore?
Dalai Lama:
No, I don’t think so. Twenty-six hundred years of Buddhist tradition
  cannot be maintained by one person. And sometimes I make a tough joke:
  We had a Dalai Lama for almost five centuries. The 14th Dalai Lama now
  is very popular. Let us then finish with a popular Dalai Lama. If a
  weak Dalai Lama comes along, then it will just disgrace the Dalai
  Lama. (The Dalai Lama laughs.)

I don't think we can easily generalize like "Tibetans have preserved true meditation" or "Theravadins did". I believe, there have been pockets of true practice and true realization at all places at all times, and there were lots of superficial imitators, as with any other human activity.

I was trying not to impute "true" to anybody's meditation -- apologies if I failed to convey that. I do think, however, that modern scholarship has firmly established that anything like what we call meditation today -- pursuit of insight and hence enlightenment -- was not practiced by a significant number of the Theravada monkhood in centuries prior to the "revival" of the 19-20th centuries.

Of course, there is the question whether some practices judged "mere ritual" by scholars, most notably Tibetan sadhana practice, was indeed a form of meditation in pursuit of higher insight and hence enlightenment. I do think that with the Tibetans emerging into the west since the 1950's we now understand such practice to indeed be systematic pursuit of insight, despite its ritual appearance. I think McMahan accepts that and still doubts that many Tibetans practiced it -- a doubt I am disputing.


text:
How to Know the Knowing of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta
Anicca, dukkha, anatta. I've listened to plenty of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis talk about these characteristics at length.
Take for example anicca. I am asking the same thing about dukkha and anatta.
Suppose one has not yet seen for oneself how all phenomena are impermanent, but has an intellectual understanding of it from listening to the Dhamma.
Is it possible that such a person could, for instance, recognize anicca, but not understand that they have recognized it, thinking, "Anicca is yet to be grasped", when in fact anicca has already been grasped? To clarify, the person might even reap the benefits of understanding anicca. They don't fret about illness, nor about building a career, nor about global warming, for instance. (I have picked a few things from my own life that I am still learning to deal with). Yet the person still thinks, "Anicca is yet to be grasped."
If it is possible, how is it possible and what should one do about it? If it is not possible, why not?
As a guess, does the answer lie in the person's actions?
As another guess, is this a more specific case of asking how to know one's own mind?

There is knowing of Anicca, knowing of Dukkha, and knowing of Anatta, separate from each other. And then there is knowing of all three together, or rather the knowing of vision behind these three designations, in all its implications.
In my experience, it is seeing all implications, top to bottom, is what makes all the difference in the world. I had intellectual understanding of the three marks for years. I even understood shunyata, or thought I did. I even knew that Enlightenment can't be a state. And I still missed the point.
It's all about implications, of all three, together. When you know reality behind the three, and all implications of this reality, then you can be sure you know what is there to be known. Until then, to think "anicca (etc.) is yet to be grasped" would be a valid thought. Why? Because if you don't see how it fits together, or do see how it all fits together but not its implications -- then your knowledge of individual components is obviously not 100% complete yet.

So basically if you're not sure whether you know, then you don't know, right?

if you're not sure whether you know, then you definitely don't know, yes. But even if you're sure you know, you could be mistakenly sure. It is only when you see how it all fits together, then you know that you know. Although there could be an intermediate period when you almost know how it all fits together, but don't quite realize all its implications yet. That's almost like what you say, not knowing that you already know it, but not really, because the implications are missing, which means the knowledge of how it all fits together (and thus of individual components) is not complete yet.

Bit late, but I would like to contribute.
According to the tiny fraction I know of Buddhism, any material phenomena of this world, shows the four fundamental characteristics (Maha Bhuta) of Patavi (Hardness, Solidity), Apo (Liquidity, Binding or flowing nature), Thejo (Heat) and Vayo (Movement, Air).
These characteristics appear, live and disappear. Billions of these sets of Bhutas appear live and disappear in a fraction of a time. This applies to all materials including our body.
Bhuthas are not permanent (they disappear), so it is Anicca. Bhuthas getting aged and fade away during it's life time. So it is Dukkha. No one or no power in this universe can penetrate or force on the behaviour of these Bhuthas. So it is Anatta.

Hi Somebody and welcome to Buddhism SE.

Right view is the "Four Noble Truths": the only line of thought compatible with the most refined states of phenomenal cognition.  Aj Thanissaro's rendering of 'Stress' is useful in this third definition.
With the successive development of Right View, the path successively unfolds: to attain it's successive development, the path has to develop as support.  In one instance either one is the result of the other, in another instance it is the cause of the other.  Hence clarity and skillfulness go hand in hand, ie. samadhi and punna need to develop as occasions present: either one sharpening-up the other.
Trying to see no-self begs the question of who or what is looking.  In the perception of endless transience and stress, the complete absence of any unchanging eternal identity may be noted: simply a fresh identity corresponding to each successive observation.  In D.O., contact with, or cognition of, an object results in the arising of a feeling.  If attention turns to this feeling, it is understood to be a bodily sensation.  Thus identity with the initial object won't arise, though identity with the body may well do so: in which case Stress continues, and the whole tangle of Samsara ensues.
Since this happens unknowingly, the 'unbinding' is simply making this very unknowing fully knowable.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
What is Buddhist Modernism?
This question refers to "Buddhist Modernism" however I'm not sure what it is. It is a term that I have heard crop up in a few other places. Is it a reformation movement within Buddhism? If so what is it reforming and when did it occur? Is it particular to one school of Buddhism? Is it a related concept to Navayana Buddhism perhaps? Is it a real movement at all or just convenient shorthand for Buddhism as it enters the modern world?

Buddhist modernism is a scholarly (and increasingly, popular) term for the variety of ways that Buddhism has been adapted, both West and East, to recent (last couple hundred years) Western cultures, philosophies, societies and intellectual traditions. It includes (not an exclusive list):

de-emphasis on ritual
de-emphasis on the ultimate goal of nirvana or enlightenment in favor of lesser goals or even simply everyday relief of suffering
emphasis on lay vs monastic practice
re-invigoration of meditation as a major practice after long decline in some traditions, even among the monkhood
identification with western values from the Enlightenment (in the western intellectual history sense) and Romantic movements
alliance of Buddhism with science and scientific values
adoption of the Western philosophical standpoints of naturalism and physicalism and corresponding de-emphasis on so-called supernatural phenomena such as rebirth/reincarnation and non-physical realms and beings
reinterpretation in various ways of karma as a naturalistic phenomenon

See the Wikipedia article for more details and references.

Buddhist modernism just refers to Buddhists who only accept the aspects of Buddhism they consider to be compatable with the modern world. Usually the term is used to describe Buddhists who reject things like Karma and Rebirth but still see the Dharma as having things to offer. It's not a movement, just a catch all term used to describe people like that.
I think it is worth noting though that the term is relative to some extent. For one group of people it would be considered modernism to suggest that the traditional stories passed down aren't 100% accurate, and in other groups rejecting such stories might be the norm. I also think that there is a legitimate place for questioning and analyzing the core claims of Buddhism, although I think that the claims actually stand up whereas people who get called Buddhist modernists tend to think that's not the case for some of them.

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


text:
What is the appropriate course of action for disagreeing with an authority figure?
For example... If a senior monk is basing his judgement on personal opinion and not the vinaya, creating dukkha in the community and sowing discord... how would another person (monk or lay) go about addressing this hindrance?

I think it depends on the nature of the opinion and the nature of the disagreement. Sometimes figures in authority positions have to make a judgement call about an issue where the formal rules of the situation don't clearly address the situation at hand. I think that in such a case the person in authority should have their decision respected, provided that the decision is based on the relevant principles to the case at hand and is a reasonable interpretation of the facts and rules.
If their decision is just plain not reasonably based on the facts or the relevant principles then it is clearly wrong and the best thing to do is to decide whether or not it is a big enough deal to want to appeal, and if it is, then one should take the matter up with the next highest competent authority, be it their boss or the HR department.
In the case of a monk the correct response would be to bring it to bring it up with whoever is higher in the hierarchy with respect to the disputed matter. For example, if you have a dispute with the Monk in charge of the lost and found or something in a monastery, the correct response would be to go to the person in charge of the building, or to the Abbot if the matter was important enough.
If it is a very serious matter then one should probably go to the Abbot directly and if that fails, then try to find a senior Monk to get the matter brought to the attention of the local Sangha council if their actions are breaking the Vinaya. And of course it goes without saying that if they are committing serious crimes or putting people in danger, one should contact the authorities as well.
But as I said, authority figures have to make judgement calls when the rules of a situation are unclear and as long as their decision is a reasonable one it is better to simply accept their decision. It doesn't make much sense to fight with an authority figure if it's just a case of "They decided A but I think that B is better."

The term "hindrance" (used in the OP) is more usually applied to some aspect of yourself (e.g. doubt, restlessness, ill-will, etc.) than to an external thing or fact (e.g. what someone else says or does).
Perhaps a good answer would be to, somehow, accept or discard the disagreement, or reformulate your perspective so that you view (frame) it differently. Generally, depending on the specific type of hindrance (e.g. "ill-will") there may be some corresponding antidote, for example metta.

The OP says "the vinaya" so, assuming you're asking about monastic rules, this page references vinaya texts, which describe rules which monks accept.
Depending on the topic/subject of your disagreement, one of the relevant rules might be "13. Criticizing or complaining (about a Community official) is to be confessed" on pages 278 through 280 of this document (rules for the official being in Chapter 18, starting on page 272 of this document).
I won't quote from it: two pages is slightly long to quote here entirely, but I don't want to quote extracts from it in case I am wrongly biased in which extracts I select: so, better to read it all, it's only two pages.

On the (slightly separate) subject of "sowing discord" there's something about "dispute resolution" on page 453, which starts with,

In addition, dispute-issues must be settled “in accordance
  with the majority”; accusation-issues, either by a verdict of mindfulness, a verdict
  of past insanity, or an act of further punishment; and offense-issues, by acting in
  accordance with what is admitted or by covering them over as with grass.

It includes the usual kind of "if it's the right topic at the right time" and "if it will be received correctly by the audience" advice:

If the answer to the first four questions is Yes, and to the fifth question No
  (i.e., the discussion is not likely to lead to strife), he may then go ahead and start
  the discussion.

It lists "unskillful states" which "can turn disputes into issues."
Reading further, it has advice like,

The Commentary here adds that the residents should first stall
  for two or three days—saying that they have to wash their robes or fire their
  bowls first—as a way of subduing the pride of the incoming bhikkhus.

I won't try to summarize it further: it's there for you to read if you think it's relevant.


text:
When and why did monks stop meditating?
My understanding is that meditation went through a revival in the last two centuries, in part due to the efforts of the Theosophical Society. Supposedly in the past, monks had nearly or totally stopped meditating. Can anyone fill out the picture?

Main question in the title, when and why did monks stop meditating?
Were other elements involved in the revival?
Is this perspective more descriptive of Theravadan countries?
How did reality differ from this picture?

A long time ago in Sri Lanka the Sangha began to divide itself into two sort of specialties of Monks. There were city Monks who lived in monasteries inside the cities and villages, and they specialized in the study of texts and doing ceremonial functions while the forest Monks lived either in monasteries outside of settlements or they wandered from place to place. Such forest monks specialized in meditation. Over time distinct customs grew up with these two specializations, so for example in Thailand, city Monks (with the exception of the Dhammayut monks) wear bright yellow or orange robes while forest monks always wear brown or ochre colored robes.
Over time these customs evolved further, so for example in Thailand for a long time forest Monks also became specialists in using special chants and other kinds of things that are usually thought of as magic.
In the case of Thailand at least the revival came partly as the result of a reform movement that was founded by King Rama IV when he was a monk that focused on improving the standards of the Vinaya. When this movement grew to include forest monks, this reform movement created a lot of dedicated monks who wanted to live the forest monk lifestyle in a much more meditative role rather than the semi-shamanistic role that the forest monks had slipped into, and that became the foundation of what is now the Thai forest tradition today.
In Sri Lanka the revival had a lot to do with the rising sense of anti-colonial sentiment towards the British who controlled Sri Lanka at the time, with Buddhism growing again as a response to Christian missionaries. This Buddhist pushback started when the Monk Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera began putting out pamphlets refuting Christian missionary literature, and this gave way to a series of debates which culminated in the city of Panadura, and it was the Ven. Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera who won the series of debates.
This sparked the Buddhist revival movement and it was at that point the Theosophical society lent support, and meditation became more common as serious study of texts became more common.
As for Burma, I think the meditative side of revival there is largely the result of the Ledi Sayadaw's influence. He was a major scholar (In Burma, scholar monks are usually more influential) who learned meditation from someone (no one really knows who) from the hills in the Sagaing region, and he popularized that style of meditation through his teaching and scholarly writings.

I'm interested as well how long after the Buddha died did they stop the  practice of meditation.  Another thread also seems to indicate that it was revied about two centuries ago.

@MFS Meditation never actually 'died out' in Theravada countries in the sense that the practice was forgotten. Rather, the number of monks who were primarily devoted to meditation were relatively few and the lay community as a whole wasn't as interested in meditation as they are nowadays. When the revival came the number of serious meditator monks increased to a larger degree than before. It wasn't like they had to rediscover the instructions on how to meditate or anything.

I'm interested in reading more about the role of the Theosophical society and the related events you mention - do you have sources I can access?


text:
Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?
Why is it that Buddhism never compiled a reasonably concise set of canonical texts like the Bible? Buddhism itself has universal beliefs such as the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the notion of going for refuge. To me then it doesn't seem unreasonable that there could have been a Buddhist Bible that complied these central beliefs in the same way as the Christian Bible.
Even though the Christian world is diverse they still manage with one Bible (though I do appreciate there are different version such as the Orthodox Bible) and this Bible forms the basis of new forms of Christianity or new emphasis on Christian belief. However Buddhism seems to have an enormous array of texts over a number of different canons (Pali, Chinese, Tibetan) and commentaries and para canonical texts. Why the difference?
Is there something in the history or culture of these two religions that caused them to treat their texts differently. Am I wrong and the differences aren't really there if you look at it correctly? Is it a theological matter? I appreciate you could ask the same question about Islam and Hinduism (I think) but I want to keep the question as on-topic and tractable as possible.

There is "The Three Cardinal Discourses", that is like a shortened version of the entire Pali Canon. There is always "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula that anyone can download for free off the internet, as well as countless other similar  dhamma texts that teach the Buddha's teaching concisely.

@user535875 thank you for that. Appreciated. But i'm not really asking for a reference to a Buddhist Bible as such. I'm more asking why Buddhism itself has so many texts as compared to Christianity and why Buddhism as a religion never to my knowledge produced a concise document that was widely accepted and transmitted as part of the spread of the religion. Your reference do look interesting though

"Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?": Why does the Tripitaka fails to correspond with the bible?

@ThiagoSilva this is a very valid point. From my own naive perspective the Bible seems to me to be something that has validity across all strands of Christianity. Does the Tripitaka have a similar status (genuine question - i don't know).

@CrabBucket popular saying is that current Tripitakas are acknowledged by all ramifications of buddhism -- someone else here may know this in more details. But, though many translations are said to be quite consistent, some editions have significant variations, both in text and in books (I've read that while Nikayas are pretty consistent overall across editions, the Abhidarma is drastically different). It is also hard to generalize the importance of variations in suttas: while many are of smaller importance, some are not.

Why is it that Buddhism never compiled a reasonably concise set of canonical texts like the Bible?
One could equally ask, "why didn't Christianity compile a lengthy and diverse set of canonical texts like the Tripiṭaka?"
The thing is, Buddhism does have a canonical set of texts that are widely viewed by all major Buddhist traditions as canonical (as far as being the teachings given by the Buddha during his life time), organized into books and sections somewhat like the Christian bible. And while the exact makeup of the set differs from tradition to tradition, the core texts (mainly the first four nikayas of the sutta pitaka in Pali - the agamas in Chinese), are agreed upon as canonical. This is not dissimilar to the situation that exists between Judaism and Christianity.
So, there only remains the question, why is the Buddhist canon not "reasonably concise"?
The first reason for the difference in length is a great amount of repetition, brought about both by 1) the fact that Buddhism was orally transmitted for so long and repetition helped with memorization, and 2) the state of having a good number of the same teachings given multiple times in slightly different contexts and faithfully recorded in duplicate, triplicate, etc.
The second reason is the discrepancy in time span. Jesus taught for around three years before getting himself killed; the Buddha lived to the ripe old age of 80, teaching for 45 years from the time of his enlightenment. One scholar (Rhys-Davids, IIRC) estimated that, all repetition removed, the Tipitaka is approximately eleven times the size of the Christian bible. Given that the Buddha taught fifteen times as long as Jesus, this seems like a fairly reasonable difference.
EDIT: removed the third reason.

Perhaps it's better to point out that Bible (well, the New Testament) was not written by Jesus, not even his disciples: it's written by people hundreds of years after his supposed existence, its contents are actually less teachings and more moral stories, which might explain its relatively short length

@Raestloz: You are mistaken (or at least grossly oversimplifying). The NT wasn't written "hundreds of years" after Jesus existence: although there is some dispute, most modern scholarship dates most of the NT to within 100 years of Jesus death, and the rest to within 150 years or so. Large portions were written by those who new Jesus personally, or was written under the direction of those who did (the major exception being the parts written by Paul).

@Kramii last time I read about New Testament, it was said to be about 200-400 years after Jesus's supposed existence, perhaps I was wrong, but even if we agree on 100-150, then we should expect that those who knew Jesus personally lived to about 100-130 years, while Moses himself was supposed to be only 120 years old, and life expectancy for Jesus' generation was about 70-80 years: http://www.raptureready.com/rr-last-generation.html. By the time someone writes down Bible, it'd at least be third if not fourth hand account

Note that I'm not dismissing New Testament here, I'm just saying that since it's not directly from the teacher himself, its contents lean more on being moral stories: long enough to tell the gist, but short enough to stay interesting, which may contribute to its length

Now I'm curious what the removed third reason was...!

@Raestloz The red letter pArts of the Bible are  certainly written by somebody extremely wise and rebellious against the establishment. I am confident that whoever wrote those parables was a very wise ascetic... with a possibly a large ego.

I think it is mistaken to think that Christianity just has the Bible as it's authority and everything else is dispensable. That idea only showed up at the time of the protestant reformation, and before that, the writings of the Church fathers (which are quite voluminous) and books on theology were regarded as an absolutely essential part of Christian doctrine. Even for Catholic and Orthodox Christians of today the suggestion that the Bible is the only supreme source of doctrine is rejected. They believe that the Sacred Tradition passed down through the ages is equally authoritative as the Bible itself.
Buddhism has such a large variety of texts largely because in the early days after the Buddha's passing into Parinibbana, converting the oral teaching into memorized texts was the only way that the teaching could be adequately preserved. These texts were transmitted to different places and so were commented on and interpreted differently by different people, leading to commentarial literature and many other works being written. Much of this also happened with Christianity as well, although the Bible isn't as big as the Tipitika. It was only within the past 500 years or so that some Christians began to focus on the Bible to the exclusion of these many writings, and even they rely very much on their own writings.

Christian tradition has always considered a set of books as being more authoritative.  The canon has varied, but certain books have remained constant.

@yters To this day the Roman Catholic church teaches that you must not put your interpretation of the Bible ahead of the Church's; that the Bible should be read as informed by the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the teaching of the Magisterium. Alternatively the Quakers clearly consider the Holy Spirit to be at least as authoritative as the scriptures.

If you separate a bible, you have actually many books therein. Also, there are, as you pointed, many "bibles", that is, not only different translations, but bibles formed by different sets of books -- some books are accepted here, some are rejected there. If you take the tipitaka, it is also formed by many books. Correspondingly, there are different versions and editions of it.
So, christianity, just like buddhism, produced many "books" (Matthew, Mark, Acts, Romans, Revelation etc, on one hand and, say, Majjhima Nikaya, Dhammapada, Khandhavagga, etc on the other). Christianity, just like buddhism, had groups selecting and discarding texts through time, establishing a certain canon for them.
An early example of this the buddhism councils.
On the christian side, this reminds me of some books I've read from a catholic father about the First Council of Nicea and how (overly simplifying), part of it, was about determining a christian canon -- that is, selecting the books that were being used by churchs, that show some consistency among themselves, etc, and apparently burning ones that were not (something to do with new sects popping up with corrupted texts to take advantage of the trends). But wikipedia presents material that disagrees so, this may not correspond to fact. However different, processes of determining what books form a certain canon still took place through time.
This just illustrates the point that there is a historical process, whatever it is, in both traditions, involving people who compiled what is part of the canon (call it a bible, or a tipitaka) -- and, in face of apocryphal material, what is not. Also, some groups may decide to preserve early material, rise the criteria for acceptance, and see late material with different eyes, while other groups may decide that some late material stands in equal footing, or is a legitimate continuation of (and fundamental contribution to) the early ones.
For example, Paul of Tarsus came in after, but his writings were welcomed in the canon (I wonder if any early group rejected his work?). Similarly, Nagasena came many years after the Buddha's parinirvana. So did Huineng.
Finally, both traditions had many authors publishing books on top of the core texts.
So, it seems to me the difference is the physical limits that a physical book imposes on the number of pages. While the bible can be formatted as a single physical book, I think it would be a challenge to have a unitary physical Tripitaka.
But, again, this is the electronic age of Kindles and such...

Just for the remarks at the end concerning Paul of Tarsus: There was sharp, and I'd say even harsh, disagreements between Paul and Petrus in the question of eating meat and of circumcision and the general relations between Jews and non-jews - in that Paul won that disputes his believes and precepts became more authoritative and canonic, but it was not at all in the beginning. There are more such points traded which were in dispute in the first christian "sanghas": and they had not one but 12 authorities for the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus - and existed widely as potential outlaws

Why is it that Buddhism never compiled a reasonably concise set of canonical texts like the Bible. Buddhism itself has universal beliefs such as the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the notion of going for refuge. To me then it doesn't seem unreasonable that there could have been a Buddhist Bible that complied these central beliefs in the same way as the Christian Bible.

Printed/published books like that (i.e. a reasonably concise set of canonical texts) certainly exist. For example there was one (titled "The life and sayings of the Buddha" or something like that) in my hotel room in Singapore, next to (i.e. as well as) a Christian bible (and, if I recall correctly, a Hindu bible and a Muslim bible).
Admittedly it's a set of canonical texts, not a canonical set of texts.

Even though the Christian world is diverse they still manage with one Bible

Yes, actually I don't think they do manage with just one Bible. In the Catholic Church, for example, the equivalent of "the dharma" is IMO "the magisterium" which includes teachings by the Pope and Bishops.

However Buddhism seems to have an enormous array of texts over a number of different canons (Pali, Chinese, Tibetan) and commentaries and para cononical texts. Why the difference?

Perhaps you are ignoring different Christian sects: for example, don't you think that the Lutheran "canon" would include the writings of Luther? And that Luther's writings are not "canonical" for other sects?
To pick another example, because the Quakers believe in continuing revelation IMO their canon is still being developed.
Moving on to Buddhism, I'd like to quote the following which might describe why the Buddhist canon isn't edited unnecessarily.
Reform of Vinaya

Finally, there is a consideration based upon the nature of the training and the end which it has in view. From the Buddha-time down to the present it has been found that a careful application of the Vinaya's principles by a bhikkhu in his life promotes his practice and understanding of Dhamma: "Vinaya leads to restraint; restraint to the absence of remorse; absence of remorse leads to joy; joy to delight; delight to tranquility; tranquility leads to happiness; happiness to collectedness; collectedness to knowledge and vision of the truly existent; knowledge and vision of the truly existent to revulsion;[9] revulsion to dispassion; dispassion to freedom; freedom to knowledge-and-vision of freedom; and knowledge-of-vision to freedom leads to Nibbana free from (clinging to) substrata (for rebirth)" (Vinaya, Parivara, 169). When Vinaya has been so formulated as to guide a bhikkhu to the goal of Nibbana, who shall entertain thoughts altering it? It is we who have to change by our practice of Dhamma-Vinaya, to come up to its level and not to expect it to change for us. In this connection, there is a little fable:

At one time there was a great and flourishing tree standing as it had stood for many, many hundreds of years. It was so beautiful that men and women bringing their children would come from scores of miles about to gaze in wonder at its perfect and majestic shape. Under its mighty spread of branches multitudes could sit down enjoying its cool shade. Even animals would come and delight themselves according to their several habits, some upon the grass beneath and some sporting amid the profusion of leaves, flowers, and fruits. And such flowers of such fragrance — no one knew where else their like might be found. And such fruits as this tree bore and in such abundance! No wonder that they are called best, highest, foremost and supreme among all fruits produced by other trees. So the seasons and the years rolled by and still the mighty tree stood hardly changed, for where one branch died off, another grew to replace it. The delight of many beings, visible and invisible, was in the health and long life of this ancient tree. Then, in accordance with the change inherent in things, fashions changed and trees in their natural vigor were no longer praised but trimmed and artificially-shaped trees were thought more beautiful. Agitation began among some men for the tree to be shaped up according to modern taste. Eventually, due to debased ideas of people by that time, loppers and clippers tried their hands upon the millennial giant. Branch after branch fell loaded with flowers and bearing fruits. "Never mind," they said, "it will look much better when we have finished." Before long, the tree was pruned into the form of a perfect cube and this was regarded by almost everyone with satisfaction. Only a few ignorant people regretted the sawn-off limbs and bare branches with a few clusters of leaves left here and there. These ill-educated persons were heard regretting the lack of any shade. How stupid of them!
It is needless to say that the venerable tree flowered and bore fruit no more and due to shock, died shortly afterwards, leaving only its great, but dead framework which then became an object for the speculative theses of numerous men of books.

Consider how the Bible arose. Four historical persons played key roles in bringing the Christian Bible to you. They were Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, who thundered against any who did not accept exclusively the four gospels as divinely inspired; the 1st century ascetic Saint Jerome who translated Hebrew and Greek texts into the Latin Vulgate Bible; Johannes Gutenberg who in the 1450s printed the first Bibles in Latin; and Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury and chief overseer of the production of the King James Bible in English. In each man's case there was a power struggle in progress:
Irenaeus was in doctrinal conflict expressed in "Against Heresies" with gnostic christians such as Valentinians whose scriptures were largely suppressed; Jerome was involved in the violent struggle in 366 between rival pope-elects Damasus and Ursinus as secretary to Damasus; Gutenberg printed his Bibles while the erudite Pope Nicholas V, smarting from the invasion of Constantinople (1453) urged the Portuguese to retaliate against "Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ"; and Bancroft was commanded by King James I of England to purge the Bible text of catholic and puritan influences.
Each of these christians mentioned believed they were handling the actual words revealed supernaturally to men by a supreme God who promises salvation conditionally through a particular congregational organization, whose doctrines its clergy must find justified in its Bible. Buddhism however, like other religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent, is a dharmic teaching that owes nothing to any organization-hungry supreme being. The source of Buddhist doctrine is an earthly man Gautama Sidhartha, not a god but one who by purely human effort reached an Enlightenment that buddhists have gratefully received and shared ever since.
The question about collecting a concise set of texts about the universal beliefs in Buddhism is a good and reasonable idea. I think it has been done already! For example the Dhammapada offers a collection of Buddha's sayings in a popular form, and among the suttas I find the great Mahaparinibbana Sutta (it means the Buddha's departure at death to Nirvana) and the Maha-sihanada Sutta (The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar) both readable and rich in doctrine. Others can point to writings ancient and modern that they recommend; my references are within the conservative Therevada school.
However there is little impetus to produce a literal "Buddhist Bible" (although it has been done). The word "Bible" would contribute no more than the idea that the work is (like the Christian Bible) a collection of texts, and it would be seen as confronting the existing Bible. That is the approach of the Islamic Qur'an which Mohammad claimed is divinely revealed as an update and corrective to the Bible, and not the intention of Buddhism.
References:
Dhammapada: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.intro.budd.html
Maha-parinibbana sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
Maha-sihanada sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

An anonymous (not logged in) user suggested an edit to this post (which I rejected): which was that there is a Buddhist Bible, and that it is called the writing of Nichrien Daishoni. Vol (1) and (2)

One possible reason why christianism has been more reluctant to add new texts into their canon is that it is a profetic religion, that is, a religion based on revelation assumed to come directly from a superior or ultimate entity (their God). Buddhism would be a "mystical religion" based on humans accessing the ultimate truth directly. Christians (or Jews or Muslims) would need to be sure that a text was inspired directly by God in order to add it to their canon.

Just a guess. May be there were books clandestinely made and slowly destroyed by dominant Hindu patronage. The heavy hand of Emperor Asoka promulgated it on stone rather than on less permanent palmyra leaves as solidly standing popular effective stone reference sites.Invasions may also have destroyed any books along with the main Buddhist institutions.

I have a high degree of certainty that this is the correct answer. IMHO the Buddha created a massive amount of seeming redundancy in his teachings for a reason. He KNEW the ruling class ALWAYS seeks to subvert teachings which are inconsistent with their interests. He saw the world the way it actually is. He KNEW this would happen.

I cannot but agree. The destruction of universities and places of worship bear enough testimony to internal and external hostility .. just as  Buddha might have well expected.

I would like to give simple suggestion.  Come out of the box where you stand now. The Box  is "every religion should have a book similar to bible" to follow for the people.  That is the box where you stuck. You still expecting every religion should have a book similar to bible explaining the whole preachings in one.  Once you come out of that box you will find the answer. That requirement is in your mind only.  There are thousands many other ways to learn the religion apart from the book like or similar to bible book. Now Technology is well advanced. Moreover Categorisation is well understandable way rather than having all in one.
That is why In buddhism there are 57 books which includes 84,000 Dhamma Notes. We called "84,000 Dharma Skandha". Those were earlier written in Pali and Sanskrit but now converted into many languages especially, in Sinhala and English. In that three main categories. Vinay - 21,000 notes, Suthra-21,000 notes, Abhidharma -42,000 notes, Each word directly directed to Nibbana. This is called "Thripitaka" These 57 books cannot include in one. One book size similar to bible. So we can say 57 bible books. it is very large. If you want to learn in brief and see use this link: Thripitakaya  you will get the idea where it is possible or not. Because this is a briefing only. These 57 books are the extended version of this.
Vinaya basically for the monks to follow the monastery life. Suthra were the one's lord buddha preached for the different people, Deva's and brahma's, ascetics, devils and etc.  Abhidharma is called Higher Buddhism which explained about the ultimate realities. You have the right to find the suitable one for you and follow. Else seeks the help from the eminent monk to find exact your way. May triple Gem blessed you!!!


text:
what is the traditional zen stance on agriculture and animal care?
its a pretty straight forward question. facts only please, no opinions, and i request that only an experienced and well practiced zen buddhist answer this question (to avoid speculation).
thanks.

I don't think we can honour requirements for certain types of people answering certain questions; this is a democratic forum and any member with a good answer is welcomed to answer any question. If you require that your answers be from a specific subset of humans that is different from the subset making up the entirety of this forum, then I think you should look elsewhere for your answers. If anyone disagrees with me, maybe we should take it up in meta.

I think it's fair to to ask answers come from a particular school of thought. Otherwise, that's exactly how SE works.

This is a vegetarianism question right? Chinese Chan is vegetarian (as is Korean, Vietnamese and Japan up to the Meiji Reformation). Animals are not to be eaten, people who take Upsasaka Vows don't own animals. Bodhisattva Vows, required to rescue animals, including farm animals. But US and Japanese Zen are generally not vegetarian, but vegetarians are over represented by about a factor of 50. This question is probably a dupe if it is a vegetarian question, unless the other Q has some sort of deficit.

@MatthewMartin It might have been a question related to whether it should have been acceptable for the OP to bring his dog to a multi-day meditation camping retreat.

Oh that one again.

@MatthewMartin 1) I believe bhante was commenting on "i request that only an experienced and well practiced zen buddhist answer this question" versus "I'm looking for zen answers". 2) it does not look like a vegetarianism question to me.... and why "agriculture"? "the traditional stance" WTH? -- hence my answer :)

There is something interesting to say about Chan, Buddhism & farming. The old vinaya prohibits farming (or any work for pay & profit really). But in ancient China, begging was illegal & gov't support was iffy. So Chan monasteries started farming. They raised vegetables (although one book I read says it was mostly share croppers peasants that raised the rice) & kept donated animals but didn't eat them. What this guy wanted for an answer (maybe he lives on a farm), dunno, but farm animals get mention in both the Bodhisattva precepts & Upaseka precepts.

>
                  Cut the bull!!!

I am not a well practiced zen buddhist but just a practitioner of zen buddhism. I do not know the answer but I do know where I would look for this answer. If I were tasked with finding the above I would look in the Diamond Sutra.

"The Diamond Sutra advises us to throw away is the notion “man,” human being. This is not too difficult. When we look into the human being, we see human ancestors, we see animal ancestors, we see vegetable ancestors, we see mineral ancestors. We see that the human is made of non-human elements. We see that we are at the same time a rock, a river, a cloud, a squirrel, a rose. And if we take away all the non-human elements, the human being is no longer there.
This is the deepest teaching on deep ecology. In order to protect the human being, you have to protect elements that are not human, because these elements are our ancestors, and if you destroy them there is no way we can be here. That is why discrimination between man and nature is a wrong view. You have to see you as nature, one with nature.
That is why harmony, respect of life, is possible. So throw away the idea that the human being is the boss, man is the boss, man can do anything to nature. The key is contemplation on impermanence of non-self."
-Thich Nhat Hanh, Dharma Talk: Free from Notions, Ocean of Peace Meditation Hall
Deer Park Monastery
Sunday, September 25, 2001


text:
Which buddhist traditions are typically viewed as most liberal?
Yes it is asking for opinions, which i will investigate further on my own. opinions would be helpful in this particular circumstance.

Liberal in what sense? A tradition might be liberal in one way but not in another. For example, the Theravada schools is quite conservative in what texts it will accept as authoritative, but is quite liberal in rules on sex for example.

Can you explain or define what you mean by "liberal" in a few sentences? It's a word whose meaning is IMO quite unclear, e.g. it's an overloaded political word in the USA (see "liberalism"), or it might mean "open to new ideas", or it might mean "avoids laws which restrict individuals' liberties", it could even even theoretically (slightly archaically) mean "generous or charitable", etc.

I don't think you can accurately define "liberal" or "typically" to a degree sufficient to answer this question from  facts, references, or specific expertise. I think the same goes for stereotyping a given tradition. I'm sorry, but I'm putting this on hold pending community discussion.

For some (unspecified) definitions of "liberal", might Soka Gakkai International (SGI) be among the "most liberal"?
For example,
this page says,

In their Study of SGI, Phillip Hammond and David Machacek suggest that the religion is "characterized by an almost libertarian perspective on individual behaviour."

I visited some SGI meetings many years ago, and those I met seemed like nice enough people, OTOH I didn't understand (didn't get much of) their doctrine.
They call themselves Buddhist, e.g. here is the meta description from their web site,
<meta name="description" content="Worldwide Buddhist network which promotes peace,
culture and education through personal transformation and social contribution.
Buddhist concepts, news, links with SGI organizations around the world and more." />

Wikipedia's introductory paragraph says,

Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese new religious movement based on the writings of Nichiren and the teachings of the organization’s presidents Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, Jōsei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda. It is one of the larger Japanese new religions. Originally a lay group within the Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist sect, the Gakkai reveres the Lotus Sutra and places the chanting of the name of the Sutra at the center of devotional practice. The movement is publicly involved in peace activism, education and politics. It has also been at the center of controversies.

I'm not sure whether to say it is a Buddhist tradition or whether it's from a Buddhist tradition. Here's what they write about their organization:

What is SGI?
Soka Gakkai International (SGI) is a lay Buddhist movement linking more than 12 million people around the world. SGI members integrate their Buddhist practice into their daily lives, following the Lotus Sutra based teachings of Nichiren, a 13th-century Japanese Buddhist priest.
Just as the lotus blooms in a muddy pond, all people can manifest the Buddha nature--inner resources of courage, wisdom and compassion that can equip them to overcome life's challenges and lead happy and fulfilling lives. As "engaged Buddhists," SGI members aim to create value in any circumstances and contribute to the well-being of others. Their practice sparks a process of ongoing inner transformation and empowerment known as "human revolution." The promotion of peace, culture and education is central to SGI's activities.

I have been to 3 Buddhist centres/traditions: Theravada, Tibetan Buddhist and New Kadampa Tradition.
Based on what I have seen I would say New Kadampa was the most liberal as they claim to have "a modern Buddhism for a modern world", however I choosed to go with Theravada for many reasons, I recommend you to investigate and do not choose a tradition based on who is more liberal, remember the Buddha's teachings were not about being liberal, but refraining from many things.
It is important to mention that Zen Buddhism is also known for being liberal when compared to other traditions, but I cannot confirm it as I have never checked it for myself.

If you mean liberal in the sense of non-traditional or neo-traditional the most accommodating of the modern way of life, I would look to outgrowths in the US because I am most familiar with that. Some sects practice freely to many degrees with women and men together such as Trungpa.
For instance Roshi Suzuki wrote the following:
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf
It is a very mild manner zen book. It has guidelines but not ones made of concrete, but ones that are flexible.
There are a number of liberal teachers that may be of interest. Each person must examine their own beliefs and find a path that works for them. Someones tame philosophy could be another's abomination.
This list is recommended reading. You may choose freely from this list and make up your own mind how you define liberal.
http://zmm.mro.org/training/recommended-reading/


text:
Buddhist view on letting the anger out. Any problems with that?
Many people claim they feel better, like a strong relief, after letting the anger out, so they scream at the open air or punch a sand sack.
Of course I'm referring ONLY to cases where there is no other person involved, so I'm NOT talking about punching a person or yelling at someone!
I know the Buddhist view on anger is to see it for what it is and let go of it, but some people see it as suppressing the anger and keeping it in, so they claim that letting it out is a better way to get rid of it. It works for them.
So, is there anything wrong with that from a Buddhist's standpoint?

in my experience it seems to come out one way or another. finding a healthier way to deal with it is a good first step in my opinion, supression alone and in and of itself does not seem to work.

The idea is called catharsis and it basically treats anger like hot water or steam that can be released when the pressure is too much. It is true that letting anger out like that does tend to produce relief, but many psychologists are of the opinion that doing so just creates a positive reinforcement of the angry behavior and over the long term simply increase it. Here's a link to just one study on it, but you can find more just by typing anger and catharsis into google scholar:
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/jbickfor/bushman2002.pdf
From a Buddhist point of view, actions which are based on strong aversion are very unwholesome and are thus bad karma and so acting out on a feeling of rage is just digging yourself deeper in the hole.
It is much better to get rid of anger by reflecting on the dangers of anger, the value of patience, establishing one's self in mindfulness, and by trying to generate metta towards the object of anger. Is this easy to do? No, it's very hard, but that's because it is a training. Serious training of any kind always takes a lot of effort to produce results. Practicing in this way will bit by bit give us a totally different way of relating to the world around us.

Is there anything wrong with letting the anger out, from a Buddhist's standpoint?
Generally speaking yes, letting the anger out is wrong, but precise answer as to why it is wrong and what to do instead depends on a school:
From Theravada's standpoint, acting on akusala (pathological) thoughts and emotions is bad karma and serves to feed corresponding sankhara's. In this context, the right way to deal with anger falls into Four Right Efforts:

Effort toward non-arising of pathological qualities that have not yet arisen.
Effort toward abandonment of pathological qualities that have arisen.
Effort toward arising of wholesome qualities that have not yet arisen.
Effort toward maintenance & increase of wholesome qualities that have arisen.

The Buddha of Pali Canon emphasizes the importance of abandoning pathological dharmas (including anger) immediately, within seconds of arising, using techniques such as 1) switching attention to an opposite object, 2) contemplating dangers of letting pathological qualities increase, 3) forgetting, 4) stilling corresponding sankharas, and 5) suppressing by force. (MN 20)
From Mahayana's standpoint, emotions come from ego, from attachments. Correspondingly, the proper way to deal with emotions in Mahayana is not by suppressing the symptoms but rather by solving the underlying issue: attachment to ego. This is done through a number of techniques, from developing compassion, to philosophical analysis of emptiness, to surrendering to teacher's upaya.
From Vajrayana's standpoint, emotions are a natural play of energy. This energy is not inherently good or bad, but could be destructive if used unwisely. Correspondingly, rather than trying to fight with nature, Vajrayana looks to harness its power for virtuous purposes. This is done through a technique called transmutation.
In transmutation of emotion (e.g. anger), rather than acting it out, which would be a waste of energy, we try to directly see the emotion as a blob of raw energy. This feels similar to seeing pain as pure information, which is another Vajrayana technique. So, rather than mulling over the cause of our anger, whatever it is, we see our emotion directly as pure energy. We look this energy straight in the face and accept it, take ownership of it. As we do this, we re-unite ourselves. It is like I am an aquarium which for some reason has grown a glass wall within itself, separating itself in two halves. Then I identified with one half, and alienated from the other. By feeling the emotion directly I recover my sense of the second half, then the glass wall dissolves and I become the whole aquarium again, if this makes any sense.
To quote Chogyam Trungpa,

Transmutation takes place with the understanding of shunyata and then the sudden discovery of energy. You realize that you no longer have to abandon anything. You begin to see the underlying qualities of wisdom in your life-situation, which means that there is a kind of leap. If you are highly involved with one emotion such as anger, then by having a sudden glimpse of openness, which is shunyata, you begin to see that you do not have to suppress your energy. You do not have to keep calm and suppress the energy of anger, but you can transform your aggression into dynamic energy. It is a question of how open you are, how much you are really willing to do it. If there is less fascination and satisfaction with the explosion and release of your energy, then there is more likelihood of transmuting it. Once we become involved with the fascination and satisfaction of energy, then we are unable to transmute it. You do not have to completely change yourself, but you can use part of your energy in an awakened state.
The whole point is that we have not actually experienced our emotions, although we think we have. We have only experienced emotions in terms of me and my anger, me and my desire. This "me" is a kind of central governing structure. The emotions play the part of messengers, bureaucrats and soldiers. Instead of experiencing emotions as being separate from you, your rather unruly employees so to speak, you must actually feel the texture and real living quality of the emotions. Expressing or acting out hatred or desire on the physical level is another way of trying to escape from your emotions, just as you do when you try to repress them. If one actually feels the living quality, the texture of the emotions as they are in their naked state, then this experience also contains ultimate truth. And automatically one begins to see the simultaneously ironical and profound aspect of the emotions as they are. Then the process of transmutation, that is, transmuting the emotions into wisdom, takes place automatically. The problem is that we never experience emotions properly. We think that fighting and killing express anger, but these are another kind of escape, a way of releasing rather than actually experiencing emotion as it is. The basic nature of the emotions has not been felt properly.
If we are trying to be good or peaceful, trying to suppress or subdue our emotions, that is the basic twist of ego in operation. We are being aggressive towards our emotions, trying forcefully to achieve peace or goodness. Once we cease being aggressive towards our emotions, cease trying to change them, once we experience them properly, then transmutation may take place. The irritating quality of the emotions is transmuted once you experience them as they are. Transmutation does not mean that the energy quality of the emotions is eliminated; in fact it is transformed into wisdom, which is very much needed.

Here are some links on transmutation of emotions for you:

Befriending Emotions article by John Welwood of Naropa University.
Dealing with Emotions blog post by Ringu Tulku.
The Myth of Freedom book by Chogyam Trungpa -- where I first learned the concept of transmutation from.
Cutting through Spiritual Materialism book by Chogyam Trungpa.

Unfortunately I cannot find any justification in Buddhist texts of expressing anger as a way to deal with it. From what I read, that is not Buddhism but primal scream therapy or some other psychological technique.
Here is what one Buddhist source says:

The Buddha said, “Conquer anger by non-anger. Conquer evil by good. Conquer miserliness by liberality. Conquer a liar by truthfulness.” (Dhammapada, v. 233) Working with ourselves and others and our lives in this way is Buddhism. Buddhism is not a belief system, or a ritual, or some label to put on your T-shirt. It’s this.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm

The rest of that page has more information on anger and anger management.

In Thich Nhat Hanh's community in France they do workshops bringing together young palestineans and jews to introduce ideas, practical ways of understanding, handle traumatic experiences and patterns and technics and will to coexist. Part of it is also, that each one much likely comes out with his/her desparation, hate, and whatever. But this is always done only in a certain setting for some course and with the tendency to become able to let the bad emotions go and become able to overcome that traumas and patterns. But although this method is introduced as a therapeutical instrument it is not intended to agitate it out in all the general daily, the non-therapeutical, common life.
In general, for questions like this, I keep with the Buddha's remark, that everything that we do regularly shall form our mind - in destructive, but also in constructive direction (well, in fact it does not need the Buddha's wisdom to know this...)

Buddism as a doctrine of dharmic control is definetly against it. It is like throwing the piano out of the window, while being taught to play it.
Anger can be described as certain dharmas being activated in your body or mind, buddhism is teaching you to control them directly. What is usually called anger management is mostly supressing the actions that the anger would want you to take. But true approach is to control each and every dharma that constitutes this particular anger activity you are having to deal with.
Since anger is a very vast idea, so many various dharmas can be active during your particular anger. And tose dharmas could be treated in many different ways, not necesary supressed. Some of them could be just a healthy reaction of your body on the input it experiences and should be let flowing naturally.
Having said that, buddhism is teaching you to play piano, but it will not forbid you from other things. If you want to throw the piano out of the window, you may have a reason for this as well. Maybe there is a crazy elefant that should be killed roaring under your window.

Among many things, Buddhism is about breaking cycles by understanding the nature of reality and getting to the roots of a problem. Unleashing your anger in such a manner may offer some temporary serenity, but you still haven't cured the root of the problem. This is why to me, it's not a very helpful idea as you continue to perpetuate the cycle.

This is an updated conversation on the age old prescription for parents to send children or angry adults to hit a pillow with a tennis racket, or hit a tree with baseball bat.
In my experience with anger education over 35 years I say without hesitation that hitting an object and any act of violence in the process of controlling an anger or a rage outcome is self-defeating.
The initial act can feel satisfying: which is deceptive and misleading. In fact the behavior is an arming  device that connects the emotion to a physical act and can escalate the outcome rather than be an effective diversion.
A much more effective technique is to familiarize yourself with your anger signals -- those emotional, verbal and body-related changes that happen to you -- and learn how to honor yourself and your needs when under stressful conditions. I am the director of Anger Alternatives where we teach these skills.


text:
Help locating a Jataka Tale
In this interesting take on Buddhism and modern psychology via the Jataka Tales and the DSM, is this passage:

The Jathka storyteller elegantly portrays the clinical picture of a
  monk (in Dummbala Katta Jathakaya) who had fear feelings, flashbacks,
  hyperaousal, avoidance and startling reactions. The monk named Marana
  Bhiruka Bikku fits in to DSM criteria of PTSD.

Can anybody locate the Jataka tale mentioned here? I tried but did not succeed, probably because of variations in transliteration.

It's Jataka #388 (Tuṇḍila Jātaka):

"Something strange to-day," etc. The Master told this tale while dwelling in Jetavana, concerning a brother who feared death. He was born in Sāvatthi of good family and was ordained in the Faith: but he feared death and when he heard even a little moving of a bough, or falling of a stick or voice of bird or
  beast or any such thing, he was frightened by the fear of death, and went away shaking like a hare wounded in the belly. The Brethren in the Hall of Truth began to discuss, saying, "Sirs, they say a certain Brother, fearing death, runs away shaking when he hears even a little sound: now to beings in this world death is certain, life uncertain, and should not this be wisely borne in mind?" The Master found that this was their subject and that the Brother allowed he was afraid of death: so he said, "Brethren, he is not afraid of death for the first time," and so he told an old tale.
http://sacred-texts.com/bud/j3/j3089.htm

The word is 'maraṇabhīruka' and it means 'one who is afraid of death'; it's not a name, just a description.


text:
Details when practice vipassana
I have a few questions:

How far do i need to be mindful? In the Satipatthana Vipassana by Mahasi, he said: "On meeting with a person in the imagination, it should be noted as "meeting, meeting", can i just say "imagine, imagine"?
If i taste something, i always want to "deconstruct" the aliment (it's sweet, salty, sour ...), it is a good thing to do (for Vipassana meditation)? Or I need just to say "tasting, tasting"

Do I need to be mindful of details? (I'm a thinking of my mother, cat...)
Sorry for my English. o/

Nice question, usually I follow the method taught by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu in his booklet, nevetheless it is not the only method, I don't go into so much details!

I have wondered this myself.

I'm guessing it sounded better in the original Burmese. "Imagining" seems more reasonable than "meeting", since the latter is not real. On the other hand, it is not so important whether the experience is "real", but that the experience is occurring, so it could potentially be beneficial to remind yourself of what is going on in your head as "meeting".  Still, I wouldn't encourage it.
My teacher recommends against "sweet", etc., though I don't imagine it would be particularly harmful, since it seems fairly "real".
Acknowledging "mother" or "cat" is not appropriate, since they are concepts and can't lead to insight into reality.  "Thinking about my mother" wouldn't be terrible, as long as the focus was on the thinking and not the mother. Focussing the mind on the concept would likely lead to either samatha jhana in the case of simple objects or distraction in the case of complex ones.

Yuttadhammo is correct. It is better to bias yourself towards noticing the ultimate same-ness (anicca, anatta, dukkha) of the particular experience rather than to get involved in being attracted or repelled by the content (specific taste, specific type of imagination) by investigating it and analyzing it.
Treat all experiences as ultimately the same and detach yourself from feeding them energy.
I highly reccommend the instructions on page 14 of this meditation manual.
It is the best, most amazing, integrative gem of a manual on vipassana and one should read the whole thing.
Here's the excerpt relevant to the fine, content-free nature of vipassana practice:

1 First, sit comfortably to relax your body and your breathing. We
  call this first step of meditation the "preparatory practices", or
  physiological adjustments, for tuning the physical nature. Basically,
  you want to situate yourself so as to lessen any physical disturbances
  or distractions. Then after your body is calmed, you start quietly
  observing your inner thoughts and emotions. In other words, you simply
  watch your internal psychological functions like a third person
  observer. This third person doesn't interfere with what's going on, or
  participate in the activities they're observing. He just stays there
  watching, neither rejecting or clinging to anything; he simply sits
  there silently observing.
[2] You continue watching your internal process of mentation until you
  reach the point where you can clearly observe every thought and idea
  which appears in the mind without any vagueness or ambiguity.
  Naturally, you are not tightening your body nor mentally straining
  during this practice. Rather, you always remain relaxed while clearly
  observing your internal mental processes. After a while, you will
  eventually be able to distinguish that the process of mentation has
  three parts: a preceding thought which has gone, a thought which has
  not yet arisen, and the immediate clear radiance, or mental state of
  present mind. With continued watching, the separation of these three
  states becomes quite clear.
[3] With continued observation, you progress a bit further and next
  realize that the past, present and future thoughts never stay. Since
  they don't stay they can never be grasped, hence we say that
  "fundamentally, they have no base to rely upon". Observing the
  appearance and disappearance of thoughts is called "observing birth
  and death", for the coming and going of thoughts is a ceaseless,
  never-ending process of arising and then disappearance, or decay. This
  is the realm of birth and death. By observing this stream of birth and
  death, you will gradually learn how to detach from the mental
  processes, and you will become more familiar with the false mind of
  consciousness. In other words, you will be able to drop the illusion
  that our mental process is a fundamental reality. Rather, you will
  gradually see that all mental states are ungraspable, transient
  phenomena which come and go without end, and they're more like
  insubstantial bubbles of foam or particles of dust which have no
  fixity of nature. Because of their ceaseless birth and death and the
  gap in-between, what we normally imagine as a continuous continuity of
  thoughts is actually an illusion, like the unbroken wheel of light we
  see when a stick of fire is spun in the air. Thus through this process
  of inner watching, you will begin to realize that our mental state is
  an ongoing process separate from our true self. The true self is
  what's watching this play scene, so it's like an internal knower who
  never moves. If you go from here to the North Pole and back, the
  scenery always changes, but that inner knower never changes--it never
  moves. In fact, it never leaves, and has never come either. It just
  is. That's what we're seeking, though on a more profound level than we
  can explain here. Now in watching thoughts without adding any energy
  to the process, you'll begin to understand how dreamlike our
  consciousness actually is because the reality it gives birth to seems
  to be there and yet the concreteness of this reality is absent. It
  isn't real. Phenomena are empty and yet they are conventionally real,
  but this conventional reality is also empty. So eventually, through
  observation with detachment, you'll reach the stage where you can
  mentally relax while "giving birth to the mind without abiding
  anywhere". Through continued observation you will notice that thoughts
  or phenomena ("existence") are born from emptiness (mental silence),
  and the existence of emptiness relies on phenomena. Existence and
  emptiness are both manifestations of one nature--its single source,
  our true self--so on the road of cultivation you don't cling to either
  side. Both sides are phenomenal constructions, or false relativities,
  so both sides are not real. Hence in shamathavipashyana practice, you
  start to contemplate the mean between stillness and activity. In
  practicing this inner watching, you'll get progressively better at
  becoming mentally free because you'll stop clinging to or rejecting
  your thoughts, emotions and sensations. Thus your mental awareness
  will increasingly "open" and your ability to function in the world
  will increase as well, so you'll actually be expanding your awareness
  while saving a lot of energy that you'd normally waste in useless
  clinging. Furthermore, your internal state of peace and calm will
  progressively develop with every increase in clarity. Thus if you keep
  observing the origin and destruction of thoughts while paying
  particular attention to where they come from and go to, you'll
  eventually obstruct the stream of consciousness.
[4] With the stream of consciousness disrupted, you will then notice a
  momentary gap of stillness, or silence, between all your thoughts. In
  other words, if you practice this method of inner observation for a
  long time--by wordlessly watching thoughts without injecting energy
  into the thought stream--the process of silent observation will itself
  disrupt the stream of mentation. The state of mind in the immediate
  present will gradually open up to reveal a tiny gap of mental quiet,
  or emptiness; when a previous thought has disappeared and a subsequent
  thought has not yet arisen, the mind will seem quiet. This mental
  silence is not a gap of dullness nor stupor, nor should it be a forced
  silence or blankness you create through suppressing thoughts. Rather,
  it will be a lucid, clear and open awareness, and these
  characteristics will gradually unfold as more time is spent in this
  state. In other words, after quietly observing our mental processes
  for quite some while, one will notice a tiny gap of silent pausation
  between thoughts which we refer to as "cessation". If we continue
  observing this state without effort and shine awareness on it, it will
  gradually expand further and further. Looking into this gap of silence
  is the process of "contemplation" or vipashyana. It's a quiet realm
  similar to emptiness, but it still isn't the genuine emptiness of Tao.
  Nevertheless, this is what we're initially after because we can use
  this state to begin cultivating prajna wisdom.
[5] If you continue to carry over this state of watching the mind (the
  process of silent detachment and immediate awareness) during all your
  normal activities--whether walking, talking, sitting or sleeping--
  you'll be able to reach the point where thoughts no longer bind you.
  Gradually their volume will die down, your radiant awareness will
  expand and you will be able to seamlessly enter into the real
  emptiness of samadhi. In other words, if you keep observing the state
  of cessation by shining awareness on this state, you will eventually
  arrive at dhyana. Thus the practice of shining awareness on the
  silence within is commonly referred to as "contemplating mind". If you
  continue progressing in this manner by reaching further levels of
  emptiness and shining wisdom awareness on any state of cessation you
  reach, you will eventually acquire prajna wisdom, or transcendental
  wisdom. Then you'll climb the various ranks of samadhi and enter into
  the Tao. (Twenty-five Doors to Meditation: A Handbook for Entering
  Samadhi, William Bodri and Lee Shu-Mei (Samuel Weiser, York Beach:
  Maine, 1998), pp. 14-17)

Also, I would refer to the chapter on vipassana practice in Daniel Ingram's book. It says the same thing yuttadhammo and I said with some vivid analogies.

Would you consider adding a blockquote (using > 1. Lorem ipsum ...) containing at least the headings from the manual to make this a more stand-alone answer rather than one that depends on a fragile link?

Mindfulness is not intellectualizing or analyzing. Such distinctions as 'sweet', 'salty', 'good', 'bad', actually inhibit mindfulness by reifying the self. Mindfulness is more synonymous with awareness. This awareness expands in every direction as you advance your understanding of sunyata. Mindfulness is a natural expression of this wisdom. If you get lost in thought or analysis of experience, that is not mindfulness. That is more of your ego polluting experience with distinction.
This is why paradoxically, you can't really "try" to be mindful. When you do try, you end up being sabotaged by your ego/intellect.


text:
What's the difference between Samma Sambuddho and Buddho
Both are in the nine qualities of the Buddha but I can't see a distinctive difference.  Is there supposed to be a distinctive difference or are these qualities an example of repetition?

By Buddho do you mean a Paccekabuddha?

@konrad1 these are the 2nd and 8th qualties of the Buddha,  but they seem so similar as to note need to be separate to my understanding.

I answered before you reply, check to see if it helps

According to the Visuddhimagga in its description of the contemplation of the attributes of the Buddha:

Vism. XII

He  is  fully  enlightened  (sammásambuddha)  because  he  has  discovered (buddha) all things rightly (sammá) and by himself (sámaí).

...

He is enlightened (buddha) with the knowledge that belongs to the fruit of liberation, since everything that can be known has been
  discovered (buddha) by him.

So the tittle Samasambuddho refers specifically to the Buddha's attainment as the result of self effort, and the title Buddho refers to the attainment itself.
Also, the term Buddho refers to any being that has seen the truth, so a Paccekabuddha is one who attains enlightenment on their own but doesn't teach, and if I'm not too mistaken an Arahat can technically be called an Anubuddha, meaning one who attains enlightnenment through following the teaching of a Sammasambuddha.

If a samma-sambuddha is alive in the world, and another person becomes fully enlightened without a teacher, and goes on to teach the Dhamma while the first samma-sambuddha is still alive, is he also a samma-sambuddha?

@qweilun According to the tradition of the Theravada school and the schools related to it (the Dharmaguptaka and Sarvastivada schools) there can only be one Sammasambuddha at a time, so following this interpretation one of them would have to either become a Paccekabuddha or postpone attainment to a later life. According to some other early schools (I think the Lokottaravada maybe) it is possible to have multiple sammasambuddhas at the same time.

According to Theravada tradition, there are 2 types of Buddhas.
1- Samma Sambuddha (full enlighted Buddha), is the type of Buddha that teaches the Dhamma, they are very rare, previous one was the Buddha Kassapa, current one is Shakyamuni Buddha (also known as Gotama Buddha) and the next one will be Maytrea Buddha.
2- Paccekabuddha or private Buddhas, 99% of Buddhas are private Buddhas, they attained enlightment, but not in a degree that they can teach the Dhamma, teaching the Dhamma requires a very special development of the mind.


text:
Sleep, references to the buddha and other arhats
I have heard on various occasions that the Buddha slept very little. I was wondering if there is any theory out there that explains this. I was also looking for some specific reference in the literature that can attest to this.
My question doesn't refer specifically to the buddha, it could refer to any trained person.
Thanks.

Just a remark, that sleeping behaves are individual even without training: in my lessons in school I've learned that there was a (german) king Otto who slept regularly only 3 or 4 hours. There was no information about some special training.

See also Do Arhats sleep?

Also related Can meditation have an effect on your sleep pattern?

I have heard on various occasions that the Buddha slept very little. I was also looking for some specific reference in the literature that can attest to this.
One of the most common references in the early texts is the wakefulness (jāgariya) pericope:

"And how is the disciple of the noble ones devoted to wakefulness?
  There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, sitting & pacing
  back & forth, cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the
  mind in check. During the first watch of the night [dusk to 10 p.m.],
  sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities
  that would hold the mind in check. During the second watch of the
  night [10 p.m. to 2 a.m.], reclining on his right side, he takes up
  the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful,
  alert, with his mind set on getting up. During the last watch of the night [2 a.m.
  to dawn], sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any
  qualities that would hold the mind in check. This is how the monk is
  devoted to wakefulness."
-MN 53, Trainee Practice

Notice that, in the second watch, sleep (niddā) is not mentioned. It mentions only lying down on the right side in the lion's posture (dakkhiṇena passena sīhaseyyaṃ kappeti). This could be an indication of not sleeping at all and continuing to practice mindfulness while, at the same time, resting the body.
On the other hand, the absence of the line "he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check", which is included in the first and last watch, may indicate a less active practice or even sleeping.
I'm sure there are more references regarding this theme but I don't recall any additional ones at the moment.

The texts often mention of how the Buddha and many of the Arahants only slept around 4 hours a night. That may sound quite drastic, but they spent most of the rest of the night in meditation, and in my experience personally practicing a significant amount of meditation before bed can reduce the need for sleep down to 4 hours quite easily.
Here are some studies I found on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2919439/
http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/6/1/47

Is there any scientific studies regarding this topic?

@RaphaelTokyo I just added in some links to studies. You can find more probably by searching for meditation sleep reduction on google scholar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/willoughby-britton/sleep-tips-meditation-for_b_597600.html plus research articles by that author

An Arahat does not sleep like a normal person. He may give rest to the body but in doing so is fully aware hence not asleep. This is a natural consequence of reducing impurities of the mind, more particularly the Hindrance Sloth and Torpor. Pacalā Sutta discusses the Hindrance of Sloth and Torpor and methods to overcome it.

Another enemy is laziness, drowsiness. All night you slept soundly, and yet when you sit to meditate, you feel very sleepy. This sleepiness is caused by your mental impurities, which would be driven out by the practice of Vipassana, and which therefore try to stop you from meditating. You must fight to prevent this enemy from overpowering you. Breathe slightly hard, or else get up, sprinkle cold water on your eyes, or walk a little, and then sit again.
...
Similarly, when you go to bed at night, close your eyes and feel sensation anywhere within the body. If you fall asleep with this awareness, naturally as soon as you wake up in the morning, you will be aware of sensation. Perhaps you may not sleep soundly, or you may even remain fully awake throughout the night. This is wonderful, provided you stay lying in bed and maintain awareness and equanimity. The body will receive the rest it needs, and there is no greater rest for the mind than to remain aware and equanimous. However, if you start worrying that you are developing insomnia, then you will generate tensions, and will feel exhausted the next day. Nor should you forcefully try to stay awake, remaining in a seated posture all night; that would be going to an extreme. If sleep comes, very good; sleep. If sleep does not come, allow the body to rest by remaining in a recumbent position, and allow the mind to rest by remaining aware and equanimous.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N. Goenka
Also see: Suppati Sutta


text:
Samatha, Vipassana, Shikantaza scientifically compared?
Is there any scientific studies that have observed through different bias the differences and similarities between those three type of meditation?
For exemple difference in EEG or brain plasticity in long term meditators, or various psychologic-cognitive tests that would give different results depending on the type of meditation.

In my understanding, these are not really parallel categories. Shamatha and vipassana are less types of meditation than aspects of all Buddhist meditational systems. Shikantaza, on the other hand, is a type of meditation, that is, a relatively complete system that can itself be analyzed in terms of how it develops and uses shamatha, vipassana and other factors. That said, there are relatively few studies comparing different types or aspects of meditation -- scientific research is (so far) typically focused on meditation vs something else.

For me the main differences from methodological point of view seems to be that samatha training the mind to focus on one thing, vipassana is to be aware of occuring and disapearing phenomena and shikantaza is simply sitting still and avoid to engage in any thoughts. Those different kind of techniques probably trigger different functions of the brain and I thought that would be interesting to have comparative studies.

I don't think that definition of vipassana is the traditional Buddhist one, which is that it's the insight aspect of meditation, and requires the application of focused attention, that is, shamatha. See my answer below. As for shikantaza, I know very little about it except that the descriptions I have seen seem confusing and sometimes contradictory to me (with no actual Zen background). I am pretty sure, however, that it is not avoiding thoughts altogether, as that might be a goal of some kinds of meditation but hardly a conceivable meditation method -- you can't just stop having thoughts.

Whatever shikantaza is, however, I agree that it would be great to study and compare it from a phenomenological and neuroscience standpoint, or better yet, in the spirit of Francisco Varela, a combination. But that goes for the entire (rather large) panoply of Buddhist meditation systems.

@DavidLewis the traditional Theravada view (as espoused by the original commentaries) is that there are indeed two different types of meditation, and they are not just aspects of the same meditation.

In my understanding, there can be shamatha meditation without vipassana -- simply training attention without any explicit attempt to gain insight. However, vipassana meditation requires a certain degree of concentrated attention, that is shamatha. So the two are intertwined in complex ways, which I tried to capture (perhaps too simply) as "aspects" of meditation. This is in contradistinction to a widespread view among scientists that so-called open-monitoring meditation is vipassana while focused-attention is shamatha, which IMHO is just plain wrong (and research is starting to show that).

I advocate reserving "type" of meditation for a relatively distinct method or system, for example: the Mahasi tradition; vajrayana deity yoga; shikantaza; koan practice; MBSR mindfulness; etc. In that sense, shamatha (training attention) and vipassana (seeking insight) are basic ingredients (or aspects) of all systems. I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but failure to make these distinctions crisp and clear has caused enormous confusion in the scientific community and public mind, and even among practitioners when trying to compare and understand each others' practices and viewpoints.

That (above comment) said, there are numerous studies of what is called Open Monitoring (OM) vs Focused Attention (FA) meditation within the "mindfulness" category, for example the paper Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation, which first defined OM and FA. FA is pretty clearly related to at least some aspects of shamatha, and OA has sometimes been equated to "mindfulness" or even "vipassana", though both characterizations are in serious dispute (see below). So in that (complicated and quite likely misleading) sense, there are studies of shamatha vs vipassana, which you can find by looking up citations to the above paper.
The only study I know of comparing (parts of) two full and contrasting systems of meditation is the recent Arousal vs. Relaxation: A Comparison of the Neurophysiological and Cognitive Correlates of Vajrayana and Theravada Meditative Practices. Interestingly, that paper discusses FA and OM (or as it is called there, distributed attention) and concludes that the distinction is neither coherent from a phenomenological meditation standpoint nor supported by neuroscientific studies.