text:
Vicious circle of karma
My question is: as i understand if you are a bad person in this life you pile up a ton of negative karma which will lead to miserable circumstances in the next life like cruel parents, birth in the poor country and that entails bad upbringing. In the end we will get even worse person then in the previos life (some street thug) who will accumulate more bad karma and so on. How do a man break out of this vicious circle of karma?

Bad actions are inherently stressful and there is a natural tendency to want that which is not stressful and avoid that which is stressful. In example a person far and down could happen to see an englightened being and that could have a powerful positive effect on his mind or other mundane things like acts of kindness or giving, there is just a tendency to seek those things out once one gets a taste for the fruits of moral behavior, the higher the contrast the more obvious it becomes as a fool gets filled with evil he will suffer the consequences. It is like pissing at the wind, eventually one will just figure it out more or less even if by chance one will turn around a bit and discern it is as better. If discernment is not cultivated to a certain point it can deteriorate if one trains what one should not train, does not train what one should train and associates with wrong view.

It's the "it should stop on me" thought. The "I won't pass this BS or hatred along" thought. And the "they are doing it out of weakness" thought.
When we feel wronged, offended, victimized, we always have choice: to take this as the way of the world and accept as our own model of behavior ("everyone is like that, so I must be like that too") or you can decide to stand against it, and hold to your values despite the cruel world.
If we are born to the world of war, we think we must prepare for war to defend ourselves, and that's how we perpetuate war. If we are born to the world of greed/competition we think we must prepare for competition to defend ourselves, and that's how we perpetuate it. If we are born to the world of hypocrisy and wearing masks, we think we can't be authentic and must wear mask, because everyone is like that, and so we perpetuate it. If we are conned we think we must conn. If we are heartbroken we think we must heartbreak.
But if we decide to go with what we think is right, despite the pressure of the circumstances, then we get a chance to break the vicious cycle of karma and change the world.

Karma has contact of 6 sense gates (passa) as a stage , foundation,  opportunity, causal (nidana) to play it out causing pains/pleasures/ and everything in between.   Without passa,  karma is useless.  This is from 6 things one should know about karma.  How to remove passa (contacting via 6 sense gates) is another question.

Have you seen Lotus buds come out of the mud and blossom into beautiful flowers? Just because you are born into a bad family background, you are not destined to become a bad person. Those who are born into good family backgrounds also become bad persons. ex: Prince Ajatasattu the son of the enlightened king Bimbisara.  Future is not written on stone and not always shaped by past actions. The decisions you make here and now play a big role in what is going to come to pass.
Anyways, if you are a bad person in this life, it is highly unlikely that you will be born as a human next time. Once you go below human, it's hard to come back up as you lack intelligence to make wholesome decisions. In that case, one would usually keep going down until one's significant bad Karma is exhausted and a good Karma from the past gets a chance to give results.


text:
Is the new "Spread Mind" philosophy actually Buddhism?
I recently stumbled upon a fascinating series of conversations on consciousness in the New York Review of Books by an MIT Fulbright scholar named Riccardo Manzotti. That series led me to his The Spread Mind website, his How to Locate Consciousness in the Physical World video, his Why Consciousness and World are one and the same book and two of his philosophical¹ cartoons².
Three (of many) of his ideas are as follows:

Consciousness is the object one is conscious of.
A physical entity exists if and only if it is the actual cause of something else.
The past is not defined until it produces an effect, but once it does, the past has been defined since it occurred originally.

I'm certainly not yet an expert in Buddhism but these three ideas alone seem to have a likeness to Buddhist teachings, namely: nonduality, not-self, dependent origination and cause-condition-effect. Yet, he was specifically asked in one of the NYR conversations if he was familiar with Buddhism and he indicated that he was not.
Are the above three ideas of his equivalent to, similar to, a subset of, or compatible with those of Buddhist teachings?
Any input that anyone would be kind enough to provide would be especially appreciated. Thank you.

This doesn't match Theravada Buddhism. However, I've seen Richard Gere expressing his view in an interview with Stephen Colbert, that the world is not independently real but is a projection of the mind. Apparently, this is from the Tibetan mind-only school.

This points: "Consciousness is the object one is conscious of.
A physical entity exists if and only if it is the actual cause of something else.
The past is not defined until it produces an effect, but once it does, the past has been defined since it occurred originally." are actually "nice" food for good thoughts and to improve good understanding, or? Especially for Abhidhamma lover.

@AndreiVolkov Further to Samana Johann's comment, perhaps this question could be reopened if the OP edited it to be of the form I found this thing that sounds Buddhist to me. Here is one or more quotes from it: <blockquote> and <blockquote> with <hyperlinked citation for each quote>. The author doesn't claim to be Buddhist, but I ask whether these quotes sound Buddhist or agree with Buddhist doctrine ... can you point to Buddhist references which agree with or disagree with these quotes? That would be asking about Buddhism, and be a specific self-contained question (focused on block-quotes).

Firstly I think you should beware of doctrines which sound similar but for different purposes.
For example, you know Newton's law of gravitation? That force is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between two objects? I once read an SF story in which characters, who had "lapsed into a pre-technological culture marked by superstition"), when they read this law, assumed that it was talking about "love" -- i.e. that people are more attracted to each other when they're closer together!
I think that's an example of one law (or doctrine) sounding the same as another, but actually being very different.
Without trying to read about and understand "Spread mind" I can't assess whether it's in any way, nor whether it's fundamentally, similar to Buddhism.
Now, looking only at the surface meaning of the words you quoted ...
Consciousness is the object one is conscious of
I think that one of the Buddhist doctrines suggests there is ...

Sense object (e.g. the thing seen)
Sense organ (e.g. the eye)
Sense consciousness
Contact between the above

... and that all of these are necessary for there to be a sight. Similarly for the all 6 senses ("6" because "mind" is treated as one of the senses ... the mind is a sense organ which perceives "mind objects" e.g. ideas).
See e.g. saḷāyatana for further details.
A physical entity exists if and only if it is the actual cause of something else
I guess this reminds me of Heisenberg, i.e. that you can't be aware of something (so it might as well not exist) unless it has an effect on (and incidentally is affected by) something observable.
Maybe it also reminds me of light cones.
In a Buddhist context I suppose I'd understand it to mean we should discount many things as unreal (or not existing) because they don't cause something else. For example, if I'm worried about the monster under my bed and ... wait for it ... I'm not eaten ... I'm conscious of breathing ... then the "monster" didn't actually cause anything and thus doesn't exist as a physical entity.
Buddhism has a lot to say and not all of it agrees with the quoted statement: for example it might say that actions or intentions cause things; or that physical entities are maybe not "entities", but are mere "aggregates" (and temporary aggregates) of other things.
Another fundamental doctrine is that anything which exists because it's caused (or when the conditions exist for its existence) will cease when its cause no longer exists (or when the conditions for its existence cease).
Buddhism may encourage us to try to stop causing more and more (which is called Saṃsāra), and to attain Nirvana (which is also called the "unconditioned" or uncaused, "timeless", and so on).
The past is not defined until it produces an effect, but once it does, the past has been defined since it occurred originally.
I don't know; Buddhism has some things to say about the past ... that what happens now depends partly on what happened previously ... but perhaps it isn't (or sometimes tries to encourage us not to be) overly interested in that.
To become "attached" to something past is a cause of suffering (if I love someone and become attached to them and they die, for example, that's kind of unfortunate; or conversely if I fight with someone and become attached to that fight and carry it around with me for the rest of my life, then that's too bad too).
Perhaps Buddhism is more interested in being mindful of (or in) the present, and the future.
Buddhism does suggest that there's been a lot of past (ever so many lifetimes), perhaps for salutary reasons.
Its doctrines about karma (actions sometimes have an immediate effect, sometimes a later effect) are barely comprehensible IMHO.

I really appreciate you taking the time to compose such a comprehensive and thoughtful response. It was very kind and generous of you. The one comment that you made about physical entities being merely temporary aggregates caused a real "click" of understanding. Thank you very much.

Yes that's maybe what's meant by "emptiness". Maybe too we're supposed to beware that such a view (of things) might be independent of (or without) ethics, which are nevertheless important.

Alright, I will take a stab at this.
(Disclaimer: unless I'm quoting a text, all of the following is my own personal understanding, based on my study of primary texts, commentaries, and practice of insight meditation, with or without guidance and confirmation of entitled lineage masters)
"Consciousness is the object one is conscious of."
In Buddhism, consciousness (vijnana) is experience of an object along with its context/background/environment. Vijnana is not a separate entity or substance cognizing an object. It is the very experience itself. Vijnana is necessarily interpretative in its nature. It involves grasping available "signs" or "features", retrieving past experiences matching the signs, and recognizing the object/situation, with experience arising as final state of this process of recognition. So far sounds pretty close to Mr. Manzotti's ideas.
A physical entity exists if and only if it is the actual cause of something else.
In Mahayana Buddhism, as explained specifically in Madhyamaka, entities do not have inherent existence. Instead, entities are considered abstractions, assembled by the mind by picking whatever criteria for identity and temporal/spatial boundaries that are useful in a particular context, with a label of name stamped on top. So from the Buddhist perspective, the actual existence underlying mind's modeling process cannot be characterized as being made of any fixed entities. Moreover, causation in Buddhism is considered a useful simplification, dependent on reification of the cause and reification of the effect. Instead, what we call "events" are in fact arbitrary points we call out in an otherwise analogue/continuous process of interaction and transformation. So from this perspective Mr. Manzotti's statement above sounds a bit superficial. I think he is hinting at his primary thesis of all existence without exception having relative nature, which Buddhism is in agreement with, but his talk about existing entities and actual causes sounds naive.
The past is not defined until it produces an effect, but once it does, the past has been defined since it occurred originally.
This seems to be the hardest of the three ideas for me to decipher. I think he is talking about determinism and free will, correct me if I'm wrong. From Buddhist perspective, the nature of the world is deterministic, as without determinism the mechanism of karma-and-its-effects would be unreliable, and it is. However, despite determinism, from the perspective of an individual being seeking Enlightenment, free will remains a real phenomena, and a useful perspective to have, since falling into fatalism would preclude skillful behavior and therefore Attainment. From the perspective of an enlightened mind, determinism and free will are not in conflict with each other as absolute and relative perspectives correspondingly. So in this sense we can say Buddhism is more or less in agreement with this statement, as in Buddhism we say that an effect of an action, once created, cannot dissipate by itself and will be experienced in a way it is to be experienced - and that at the same time, individuals have choice to act skilfully or unskillfully to create their own future.

I intend to respond further but for the moment I just wanted to thank you for the incredibly detailed and informative answer. I really appreciate it.

On point 3, I believe it's "Schrödinger's cat", an interpretation of quantum phenomena where as long as no "observation" of an event is made, the event itself remains "unresolved" (grossly speaking, kind of like lazy evaluation, something I think you might be familiar :)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can animals realise the Four Noble Truths?
SN 56.120 says:

Evameva kho, bhikkhave, appakā te sattā ye tiracchānayoniyā cutā manussesu paccājāyanti atha kho eteva bahutarā sattā ye
  tiracchānayoniyā cutā niraye paccājāyanti … pe … tiracchānayoniyā
  paccājāyanti … pe … pettivisaye paccājāyanti … pe ….
Beings (sattā) are few who that leave an animal existence (tiracchānayoniyā) & reappear (paccājāyanti) as humans (manussesu)…
  those beings are more numerous that reappear in hell…. For what
  reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths.
Ebenso nun auch, ihr Mönche werden nur wenige Wesen, die aus tierischem Schoß abscheiden, unter Menschen wiedergeboren, viel mehr
  sind es der Wesen, die, aus tierischem Schoß abgeschieden, in der
  Hölle, in tierischem Schoß, im Gespensterreich wiedergeboren werden,
  Was ist der Grund dafür? Das Nichtschauen, ihr Mönche, der vier edlen
  Wahrheiten.

Can animals avoid hell by realising the four noble truths?

Sorry but are you asking about literal animals, or about animal-like people?

This question was prompted by the comment under this answer.

In Mahayana, yes & monks are obliged to preach the Dharma to animals so that they receive the karmic impressions necessary to move them to the human realm in the next life. I see this question is tagged pali-canon, so I'm just commenting. As a generality, many ideas that were expanded on in Mahayana & are now marginal or absent in Theravada still have some seed in the pali-canon.

wuff *, got it? Me fears not possible. Whether asking about literal animals, or about animal-like people.

This cartoon video (about Angulimala) made for children shows an animal realising the four noble truths. The video is in Khmer language for our members who understand Khmer. Obviously, the video series about the life of the Buddha was made with the advice of wise & knowledgeable bhikkhus.

The video shows Angulimala with a fierce almost-inhuman face (like a mountain lion, a predator, with sunken cheeks) chasing the Buddha ... and his face changes to look more human, softer, when he's tamed by the Buddha's words.
According to this video, Angulimala changes from an animal-like state to a more human state.

I'm not sure this is a very useful answer. What are you saying here, I'm not clear at all?

No no, wait. Don't go all flames yet. I'm saying I'm not clear what this video implies since I can't watch it. Can you elaborate? I sense sarcasm, but I'm not sure I get it.

If I get it right, you're saying animals can't think, therefore the sutta must be understood metaphorically. And you hoped to help people realize that by asking this "question" which is not really a question, right?

I added a synopsis of the video.

No. My answer is completely irrelevant to the nature of the question. My answer is merely a guess or suggestion. Where as the sutta is a sutta, which we have a duty to try to understand. Regards

NO animals cannot. Because the dont have the ability to think wisely. The cannot realize norble truth because cannot see paramartha sathya..they are in one of four kinds of hells. In order to attain nibbana they have to wait till karma ends and born as human,god or brahma

So how do you explain the sutta I posted? Thanks

It's for the sake of those capable, that questions of animals are answered. It's for the sake that animals might gain faith in so far, as to simple observe the Uposatha and trust that better circumstances will follow possible in another, better birth, having build on the strong conditions, given upanissayapaccayena.
In regard of beings, having gained a human existence as far as the gross and merely physical appearance, but having character like an animal, meaning that not having attributes of generosity and no virtue, as to what the Buddha told, it's possible that a merely lost being, nevertheless could gain the path.
That is one reason why Dhamma is not only taught to those sick who are capable to get free of disease, but also to those incapable. And for the sake of those able to get the message, it's right and alowable that those not able are taught as well.

"Now, it is because of the person who will alight on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities if he gets to see the Tathagata and gets to hear the Dhamma & Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata — but not if he doesn't — that the teaching of the Dhamma has been allowed. And it is because there is this sort of person that the other sorts of persons are to be taught the Dhamma as well [on the chance that they may actually turn out to need and benefit from the teaching]."

So there is nothing wrong in also teaching "animals" under humans. Of course, since it is possible danger and not pleasant, there is no duty in do such and just teach if they show some basic characters of what is called a human being (like respect, patient, generosity, felling obligate, and virtue).
If one, on the other side, desires to get animals become humans, thinking all have such as a Buddha-Nature, he/she is not only a fool, but increases by sacrifies into the desert wrong view and suffering is bound to it naturally, being attached to animals, often just a matter of time to addopt the animals way.
Being joyful and gladen if teaching and listening to * wuff *.
In regard of being born as an animal, even if not just a common animal, but one with certain merits, think on pets, one is incapable to grow into the Dhamma, e.g. realize the four Noble Truth. Such is pointed out in the story of the Naga for example:

Then the Blessed One, with regard to this cause, to this incident, had the Saṅgha of monks assembled and said to the nāga:
“You nāgas are not liable to growth in this Dhamma and discipline. Go, nāga. (Staying) right there[2], observe the uposatha on the fourteenth (or) fifteenth and eighth of the fortnight. Thus you will be freed from the nāga-birth and quickly regain the human state.”
The nāga, (thinking,) “It’s said that I’m not liable to growth in this Dhamma and discipline!” sad and unhappy, shedding tears, let out a shriek and left.
(Mv.I.63.5) Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, “Monks, there are two conditions for a male nāga’s reverting to his own state: when he engages in intercourse with a female of his own species, and when he falls asleep with his guard down. These are the two conditions for a male nāga’s reverting to his own state.”
“Monks, an animal, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.”

As with animals, human can also be observed of what kind they actually are in cases of being involved on consuming sensuallity and in times the lose sati. Even if normaly human appearance, then, they show their animal nature, not possible to hide.
Maybe you know you self of the cases when there is no disguise grasable.
Althought it seems to be a nice live, living like a pet next kind and generouse people, there is really not much worthy and special in it, think on the many pets in human or animal body dewlling on Dhamma places and in monasteries. If they are able to observe the Uposatha anyway, good. But in now way one is smart in putting ones best fruits from ones garden as sacrify for them, yet worthy of the needed to maintain live as all beings.
If one had the luck to become a pet and then, not seeing the nurishing hand, bites it, shows no gratitude, is even pride to has become a pet under others, for such a being, surely, a talk on Dhamma should be not directed (intended for such a pet), since others might be really hurt, capable to get hurt, if feeding a sick dog with mange.

Rowf! Rowf! Rowf!
I once saw a dog who couldn't eat all the rice I had given it, so he lay down and kept watch over the rice right there. He was so full he couldn't eat any more, but he still lay keeping watch right there. He would drift off and get drowsy, and then suddenly glance over at the food that was left. If any other dog came to eat, no matter how big or how small, he'd growl at it. If chickens came to eat the rice, he'd bark: Rowf! Rowf! Rowf! His stomach was ready to burst, but he couldn't let anyone else eat. He was stingy and selfish.
People can be the same way. If they don't know the Dhamma, if they have no sense of their duties to their superiors and inferiors, if their minds are overcome by the defilements of greed, anger, and delusion, then even when they have lots of wealth they're stingy and selfish. They don't know how to share it. They have a hard time even giving donations to poor children or old people who have nothing to eat. I've thought about this and it's struck me how much they're like common animals. They don't have the virtues of human beings at all. The Buddha called them manussa-tiracchano: human-common-animals. That's the way they are because they lack good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity.

And what is meant by mange

Mange
The Buddha said, "Monks, did you see the jackal running around here in the evening? Did you see him? Standing still it suffered. Running around it suffered. Sitting down it suffered. Lying down it suffered. Going into the hollow of a tree, it suffered. Going into a cave, it felt ill at ease. It suffered because it thought, 'Standing here isn't good. Sitting isn't good. Lying down isn't good. This bush isn't good. This tree hollow isn't good. This cave isn't good.' So it kept running all the time. Actually, that jackal has mange. Its discomfort doesn't come from the bush or the tree hollow or the cave, from sitting, standing, or lying down. It comes from the mange."

E.g: wrong view, biting around for becoming and for or to gain a pack, a pride.
As one might see the animals around, their pain, even if pets, one should not only develope much metta an karuna with them, but also reflext:
Why it important to value Conditions?, practicing mudita and sharing ones merits, how ever tiny they are.
May the worthy ones and those following gain the first share of this food here, may also their attended be able to still their hunger on it, and may all the rest be able to still the hunger of those not so gifted yet. E.g. the food proper for humans is dedicated for humans, the food contained proper for animals, may be chewed on by the animals to provide them what they prever to eat on.
Since it is a matter of upanissayapaccayena of what personality, food, one prefers and not easy that food conductive for right view will be taken, by those having maybe a human body but have already or previous fallen into grace:

Maggots
When we give rise to right view in our hearts, we can be at ease wherever we are. It's because we still have wrong views, still hold onto ideas that are poisonous, that we're not at ease. Holding on in this way is like being a maggot. Where it lives is filthy; its food is filthy. Its food isn't fit to be food — but it seems fitting to the maggot. Try taking a stick and flicking it out of the excrement where it's feeding, and see what happens. It'll wiggle and wriggle, eager to get back to the pile of excrement where it was before. Only then does it feel right.
It's the same with you monks and novices (people dwelling on places wher Dhamma is taught). You still have wrong views. Teachers come and advise you on how to have right view, but it doesn't feel right to you. You keep running back to your pile of excrement. Right view doesn't feel right because you're used to your old pile of excrement. As long as the maggot doesn't see the filth in where it's living, it can't escape. It's the same with us. As long as we don't see the drawbacks of those things, we can't escape from them. They make it difficult to practice.

An what is right view?

'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world (rebirth). There is mother & father (those going ahead, one has obligation to). There are spontaneously reborn beings (Gods, Devas, Yakkhas, hungry ghosts...); there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves. (Those knowing from seeing, having done the work, not just talk)'

Since the questioner asked for "seeing here and now the truth", even he him self might be not capable, again to be seen by the wise:

While i decided to select your answer as the best due to the effort, i does not sound like Dhamma to me, which is a honored & respected refuge that is visible here & now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, verified by the wise. – Dhammadhatu
'* wuff * , rowf in english. Got it now? That might give the answer for you visible here and now, @Dhammadhatu Seen? – Samana Johann
"Paraloka" means "other world" rather than "next world"; like when drug takers believe they are having fun but end up in the other world of hell. – Dhammadhatu
Sure, for animal para, others, beyound, is still far and not easy to see, since "next" appears for them as the same. Mudita that you can chew and feed on the bones. – Samana Johann

What do you think: can Dhamma be realiced by animals? Easy or nearly to no way for humans having gained an animal state? Visible right here and now.

(42) Others will be lacking in mindfulness; we shall be established in mindfulness here — thus effacement can be done.
(43) Others will be without wisdom; we shall be endowed with wisdom — thus effacement can be done.
(44) Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them;[18] we shall not misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease — thus effacement can be done.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

While i decided to select your answer as the best due to the effort, i does not sound like Dhamma to me, which is a honored & respected refuge that is visible here & now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, verified by the wise.

"Paraloka" means "other world" rather than "next world"; like when drug takers believe they are having fun but end up in the other world of hell.

wuff * , rowf in english. Got it now? That might give the answer for you visible here and now, @Dhammadhatu Seen?

Sure, for animal para, others, beyound, is still far and not easy to see, since "next" appears for them as the same. Mudita that you can chew and feed on the bones.

"Paraloka" means "other world" rather than "next world". There is no excuse for misrepresenting what the Buddha taught using a false translation.

Did you know, that taking away something that has been given before, is an act of stealing? Did you know, that regret of one previous acts of merits lead easy to become a ancestorless, rich person not able to enjoy his wealth? Ding you know that making undertakings to harm Brahmans and contemplatives, maliciously, cheating lying... leads to hell? Can it be seen, here and now, @Dhammadhatu ? Or does it require another rebirth fist, better countless, since to gain human birth again is not easy to gain, not to speak of the teachings of a Tatagatha. let go of bad promisses if possible in t. realm.

So as to attain Nibbana the Buddha has prescribed a process of skill development called Bodhipaskshiya dharma, in short eight fold path which can be practiced only by a human not even an ordinary god, then how can an animal attain Nibbana?
Animal can do a few thing as far as human brain is concerned. Animal is full of ignorance he has cognitive skill also.

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


text:
What is the importance of intention in Buddhism?
Do any scriptures discuss the importance of intention? Why is intention rather than action important?

From the Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.

Also from Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38) below, we see that intention (cetana) provides a landing point for the continuation of karmic consciousness.

[the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what
one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for
the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a
landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that
consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed
becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed
becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of
this entire mass of suffering & stress.

The story of blind elder monk Cakkhupala from Dhammapada 1 shows the importance of intention:

On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
intention of killing and so was quite innocent."
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have
mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an
evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the
hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

Also the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124 shows the importance of intention:

The bhikkhus then asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the
hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has
been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he
goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus,
the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
evil."
Verse 124: If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle poison;
poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no evil for
one who has no evil intention.

So, intention is kamma. You can see in this question that buying frozen meat from the supermarket does not incur the kamma of killing, because there was no intention or action to kill.
But does this mean that intention without acting upon the intention can result in kamma?
According to the Yodhajiva Sutta:

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
slain in battle.

Here, the warrior has the intention. But when he strives and exerts himself based on the intention, then the fruit of the kamma reaches its peak.
Despite this, thoughts are also kamma that can result in suffering. From Mahakammavibhanga Sutta:

After doing an intentional deed to be experienced as pleasant by way
of body, speech, or mind, one feels pleasure. After doing an
intentional deed to be experienced as painful by way of body, speech,
or mind, one feels pain. After doing an intentional deed to be
experienced as neutral by way of body, speech, or mind, one feels
neutral.”

Also the Bhumija Sutta:

"When there is a body, pleasure & pain arise internally with bodily
intention as the cause; or when there is speech, pleasure & pain arise
internally with verbal intention as the cause; or when there is
intellect, pleasure & pain arise internally with intellectual
intention as the cause.

OP: so how do these teachings influence Buddhists?

You can see in this question that buying frozen meat from the supermarket does not incur the kamma of killing, because there was no intention or action to kill.
Another example is the case where if you give money to a beggar, he might use it to buy alcoholic beverages. Some people may have the idea that if the beggar uses the money to buy alcoholic drinks, then they would share in the kammic consequence. However, in this case, the kamma is based on the intention of the giver. If you gave the money with intention to help the beggar buy food, then the result will be good (assuming that the beggar hid his intentions from you).

so how do these teachings influence Buddhists?

@Hari Updated answer.

The bodily action and the verbal action are just a body. The body can not act  without vedanā, saññā, cetanā, and cittā.
Without it, the body is like a piece of wood in sutta.
See, cittajarūpa in advance.

Intention readies the body for action and may direct emotion.
Intention is directed conscious energy. When we think about doing something, where does that energy go? Thoughts like these are created before every conscious action as a means to mitigate the quantity and quality of the repercussion. If an individual cultivates an intention enough, the chances of inadvertently performing the action is more within reason.
If someone who has always been afraid of heights, but want to jump into the water more, they will jump into the water because they have reinforced with their mind they can jump in the water. The next time they go to jump from the same place, they will have less self imposed restrictions. This applies to any cultivated behaviour.
Another reason why buddhism has such interest is the repercussions of cultivating intention directly involve the the law of karma (cause and effect).
In a nutshell, our intentions carve worlds and therefore, not to be underestimated - yet this is something to be learned by every individual. The emphasis used is a subtle reminder for those who have yet to learn.
Cultivate in harmony

Intention is directed thought energy. This answer is wrong & illogical. When it says: "If an individual cultivates an intention enough", it appears to be saying the actions performed without reason are not intentional. This is obviously wrong.

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


text:
How this quote by Mahathma Ghandi is compatable with non-violence teaching of Buddhism?
Here is the famous quote by Mahathma Ghani the great leader from India;

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent."
Mahatma Gandhi

My simple question is; Is this acceptable? How can it be compatible with non-violence teaching of Buddhism?

Does this question assume that Ghandi was a Buddhist?

I am not assume that. The reason I accept Mhathma Ghandi as a great leader. This quote little controversial to me as a Buddhist. That's the reason I raise this question to get comparison with Buddhist teaching.

It's a common missinterpretation that Ghandi-like approaches, Mahātmā (Maha Atma, "great Ego, great selfishness"), of kind of passive aggressivism goes allong with the good teachings of the Buddha.
For a large he used affliction to "force" people, like with his well known extortion by hunger strike. It's merely unattentive to put exortions and alike under non-violent. Non-violence has it's root in the mind, has being impotent (for becoming and desire) as case. When one acts with big desire, big potence, yet cover one self with the cloak of non-violence one might become the hero of fools, playing with their affections.
Another outwardly indication, as a result if one has rightly developed metta one might prove:

One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.

Those common views, that "non-violent" aggression and actions of politic and "manipulation", yet most for an opinion, one side, and in opposition, are merely a notion of secular approaches and in Mahayana spheres often accepted "doing evil for a good", which is common tolerated by normal people, given the titel "hero" to one taking side.
There are NO of such "heros" who had not caused a mass on suffering, and if we think on what Maha-Atmas approach caused on wars and death in the following, to what has been giving rise to ripe, it's merely the observation of blind to gratify such as good.
Virtue which is not based on right view can not be real virtue but falls for the most into the frame of just another hypocrisy.
So in this regard it's possible better (althought aggressive as well) to listen more on such as Oshos statements on heros, like Ghandi (not, it's merely vulgar speech or better provoking)
As for the Buddha and his Dhamma, uprooting the flag, the potence, as well as giving up holding to being, becoming and birth (and its effect death) clearly contradicts not only the words but also the conduct of what ever might cover himself with non-violence, yet still on a fight and after win in the world and outwardly.
In somehow it seems in this way merely like a selfreflection, this quote, by him.
Opposing ones leader, father and mother, contemplatives, disrespect toward them, even if covert in "non-violence", leads to violence and to the other extrem on the same coin.
The Pema, love-sutta might explain it well.
It shows the four kind of tools to win fools in politic in detail:

These four things are born. Which four? Affection is born of affection. Aversion is born of affection. Affection is born of aversion. Aversion is born of aversion....

and the notions in levels of having become really non-violent, with the attributs of the Arahat at last:

"And how does a monk not burn? There is the case where a monk's conceit of 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk doesn't burn."

To be outardly potent and give birth and becoming, is not the noble intent seen within the Noble Ones, but to uproot and destry the Linga at its root, cut it of, for oneself.
Jesus-like self-sacrify, martyr of all kind, the wise and the Dhamma does not see as prais worthy but merely as "impotence" to be winner over one self and have failed to even trace the cause of suffering in ones own heart.
Understanding the quote in this way in regard of potence, than it fits to the Dhamma, for one who ignores the real enemy within one self, fighting outwardly, has put a cloak of ignorance, with favoring colors above ones ability (potence) to get a real hero.
So to rephrase:

"It is better to accept anatta, if there is mahatma in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of anatta to cover incapacity (to uproot it). Mahatma is any day preferable to incapacity. There is hope for a Mahatma man to realice Anatta. There is no such hope for those incapable to see, those without faith in the path, those not after cutting of Mahatma."

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

I think Buddhism teaches that we are responsible for our actions, our reactions, perhaps our current situation too, and our future, and that we should (and can) behave ourselves accordingly.
So thoughts like, "I'm angry, I can't do anything about it, and that's his fault" are kind of anti-Buddhist, and I assume is what the Mahathma was talking about in that quote about "impotence".
To that extent I think the quote is compatible with compatible with Buddhism (though perhaps Ghandi was making a political comment, whereas I see Buddhism as personal more than political).

If a quote sounds strange I like to read it in context. Unfortunately I can't find the context within which the above quote was written. It is recorded in a book of quotes, Gandhi on Non-Violence:

Perhaps what he means is that a violent man whose violence is held in check by fear of reprisal has the will to be violent but lacks the means - and that he therefore shouldn't hypocritically claim to be a man of peace. He is not. He is a man of limited means. And it is easier to cure his violence than to give him the means he desires to exercise it.
I think Buddha would agree. Frustrated desire is not the opposite of desire.
Gandhi isn't advocating violence. He is saying violence disguised as non-violence remains violence. Violent thoughts are the seeds of future violent words and deeds.

Manopubbaṅgammā dhammā
Manoseṭṭhā manomayā
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena
Bhāsati vā karoti vā
Tato naṃ dukkham anveti
Cakkaṃ va vahato padaṃ
All mental phenomena are preceded by mind,
  Mind is their master, they are produced by mind.
  If somebody speaks or acts
  With a corrupted mind,
  Hence suffering follows him,
  Like the wheel the foot of the bearing animal.

A monarch or ruler should not be violent, but he should not be "impotent" either. He should be competent enough to protect and take care of his people.
Gandhi was in his own way, a "wheel-turning monarch" who brought independence to his people and founded a nation, with little or no violence.
The following comes from DN 26:

But what, sire, is this Ariyan (noble) duty of a Wheel-turning Monarch?
This, dear son, that thou, leaning on the Norm [the Law of truth and
  righteousness] honouring, respecting and revering it, doing homage to
  it, hallowing it, being thyself a Norm-banner, a Norm-signal, having
  the Norm as thy master, shouldst provide the right watch, ward, and
  protection for thine own folk, for the army, for the nobles, for
  vassals, for brahmins, and householders, for town and country
  dwellers, for the religious world, and for beasts and birds.
Throughout thy kingdom let no wrongdoing prevail.


text:
How do you understand Ananda Sutta?
How do you understand the Ananda Sutta?
How do you place it in relation to the Atman or Anatta (An-atman) doctrine?
SN 44.10

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly
greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he
asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda
said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer
when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"
"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
[the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer
that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &
contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by
Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
to have now not exist?'"

It seems like The Tathagata did not go out of his way to teach and the Vacchagotta got annoyed  and gave up short of asking what the doctrine is.

Like the sutta explains, if the Buddha said there is a self it would be wrong since it comes under eternalism. If the Buddha said there is no self, Vacchagotta would have taken it as Annihilationism. Vacchagotta's mind was probably capable of grasping only one extreme or the other instead of viewing things as mere experiences rising and falling. That's probably why the Buddha stayed silent.

The sutta is not about the not-self (anatta) doctrine. The Pali is:

Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho vacchagotto paribbājako bhagavantaṃ etadavoca:
  “kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattā”ti? Evaṃ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī
  ahosi. “Kiṃ pana, bho gotama, natthattā” ti

The confused Vacchagotta basically asks the questions:
(i) 'Does my self exist (atthattā)?'; and
(ii) 'Does my self not exist (natthattā)?'.
Please notice how Vacchagotta did not ask about 'anatta' (not-self) and how it was Vacchagotta who used the words 'atthattā' & 'natthattā' rather than the Buddha. In other words, the discussion is not about the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha. The sutta is about the doctrine of Vacchagotta.
Since both of Vacchagotta's questions contained the idea of 'my self', they were illogical questions; thus the Buddha did not answer.
For example, if Vacchagotta asked: (i) is there a real self; or (ii) is there a self among the five aggregates; the Buddha could have answered. But Vacchagotta essentially asked: (i) is the self a self & (ii) is the self not a self; which was illogical.

In Mahayana, Vacchagotta (also known as Shrenika, Srenika or Seniya The Wanderer) is considered an important character, in conversations with whom Buddha illustrates the main principle of Madhyamaka - emptiness of all mental constructs, liberation by wisdom that comes from careful analysis of dharmas, direct vision into nature of things beyond either existence no nonexistence. The idea here is that the Truth lies beyond such simplistic categories, and to be in touch with Truth we must cease our tendency to cling to flat/singlesided explanations. In my own words, reality is complex, "quantum", "multidimmensional", and our habitual attempts to "flatten" it constantly lead to failed expectations and to suffering. Enlightened mind can see reality as it is, unhindered by conceptual limitations, and so always stays in touch with "tatha" - the way things really are.
In Pali Canon, Vacchagotta is mentioned in a number of suttas, all going around similar topics, e.g.:

MN 72 Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
SN 44.7 Moggallana Sutta
SN 44.8 Vacchagotta Sutta
SN 44.9 Kutuhalasala Sutta
SN 44.10 Ananda Sutta
SN 44.11 Sabhiya Sutta

In Chinese Agamas, there is one long sutra known as SA 105 Discourse to Seniya that collects these ideas in single place.
Here I will paste explanation of Shrenika's role Eduard Conze gave in his introduction to The Large Sutra On Perfect Wisdom, commenting on the following verse in Ratnagunasamcayagatha:

As venerable Shrenika the wandering beggar,
  Understanding acquired, without grasping the skandhas,
  Just so a bodhisattva, intuits real nature of things (dharmas).
  And does not seek cessation but abides in wisdom.

Conze says:

Srenika the Wanderer is, according to Nagarjuna, the Srenika Vatsagotra, who in the Pali texts is simply called Vacchagotta. A number of his conversations with the Buddha are recorded. They are scattered through the Pali Canon, but combined into one section in the Samyuktagama of the Sarvastivadins. The text refers here to a Sutra which, according to Nagarjuna, discussed “Srenika the Believer” and at the same time, according to the Vibhasha and Nagarjuna, preached the emptiness of all dharmas. Since Subhuti’s argument is difficult (here Conze refers to Chapter 8 of The Large Sutra On Perfect Wisdom, "How the irreversible Bodhisattva views things" - which is a fascinating read in itself -- AV), and since we are inclined to lean on signs, and do not see how we can have faith without a sign, “Subhuti here takes as his witness the Little Vehicle where it speaks of the emptiness of dharmas, How could those who practice the great vehicle not believe in it?”
Srenika showed “faith”, first, in that he believed that the Buddha could help him to find the path, and, second, in that he was willing to accept the Tathagata in spite of the fact that he could not be related to any of the skandhas, i.e. to form, etc. He entered into a “cognition with a limited scope” which, according to Haribhadra means that it was directed to the absence of a self in persons, and not also in dharmas). Srenika was concerned to find a true self, in other words, the Tathagata. Nagarjuna relates that Srenika originally took the person as one lump, and that therefore the Buddha asked him about its elements. He had also heard people speak of the “I” in two ways, as identical with the five skandhas, and as different from them. The skandhas are multiple, and the I is one – so they cannot be identical. The self would be born and perish as the skandhas do, and it would not be independent of causes and conditions – thus it would not be the true self. Therefore, how can something outside the five skandhas have the character of “I” or “self”? As Nagarjuna puts it, “Srenika’s second act of faith consisted in that, when he had heard that the Buddha denied the self, and said that from the beginning there was none, he accepted the fact that, because there is no self, the dharmas have no support, and are like a dream, a mirage, nonapprehensible. Having obtained power of faith, he entered into the true mark of dharmas, and did not mistake form for the Tathagata”
Srenika “did not take hold of form, etc.” The Buddha asked him: “Do you regard the Tathagata as form?” “No.” “As in form?” “No.” “As outside form?” “No.” “As the absence of form?” “No.” “When, under all these aspects, you do not see the Tathagata, should you doubt, and say: What is there fixed and definite in the Buddhas’ doctrine?” “No.” Srenika then won the path, and became an Arhat. This is how Nagarjuna recounts the Sutra.

Here's a quote from Chapter 8 of The Large Sutra On Perfect Wisdom:

Moreover, a Bodhisattva who courses in perfect wisdom should
  not stand in form, etc. to: in decay and death. And why? Because
  form is empty of form. What is the emptiness of form, that is not form;
  nor is emptiness other than form; the very form is emptiness and the
  very emptiness is form. And so for the other skandhas. By this method
  a Bodhisattva who courses in perfect wisdom should not stand in form,
  etc. to: consciousness. And the same method should be applied to the
  other dharmas.
  ...
  If, when this perfection of wisdom is thus being taught and explained
  through these modes, tokens and signs, the thought of a Bodhisattva
  does not become cowed, stolid or regretful, and his mind does not tremble,
  is not frightened or terrified, then certainly that Bodhisattva,
  that great being, should be known as standing on the level of an irreversible
  Bodhisattva — by way of not taking his stand anywhere.

For even more information, this whole topic of relationship between "world" and "mind" is expounded/elaborated in one of the most important of Mahayana's sutras, Lankavatara Sutra.

There are other Sutta which help understand this.

some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.'

So one might assume this as a canonical explaination of what is that annihilation with which Vacchagotta could've sided had the Buddha declared that there is no self [that persists through the breakup of the body] and it is imo natural to assume that this is the implied meaning because it was spoken as in opposition to eternalism which was favored by the Brahmins of that time who held that the is an element of true self that persists connecting one birth to another.
The Buddha taught neither of the two extremes. He taught that there are consequences of actions to be experienced as pleasant & unplesant feelings after the breakup of the body but he also taught that the consciousness is such that it arises as one thing and ceases as another so the consciousness which can be grasped with wrong view to be personal for this or that person might arise as that and ceases as that which can be grasped with wrong view to be that of another.
He taught that the existence of a particular being can not be pinned down as a truth or reality much like you can't pin your name as truth & reality. He taught that it is said that the notion of a  being is just a matter of thinking about the world. Neither the meat&bone body nor intellect are a person or a person's name in & by themselves but a person is said to not be without, therefore speaking of a "person" or a person's "name" is entirely a matter of speech & agreed upon assertions as it's existence can not be pinned down as anything other than an idea or its expression neither in this life nor the next.
He understood that which is a truth & reality and explained it's conditional  dependency. There was no self among those elements, there were ideas and some unfortunate confusion about the content of ideas being as real as the truth of ideation there but there was no self other than an object ideation coming into play to cause all kinds of delusion.

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


text:
Fecal and Urine medicines, what are the recipes?

A medicine may be made of the “four great filthy things”: excrement, urine, ashes, and clay
A bhikkhu’s basic medicinal support is puti-mutta-bhesajja, which translates literally as “rancid urine medicine” (Mv.I.30.4)

does anybody know a recipe?
Also any relevant information pls, tyvm.

This question could use some references to help those who are not familiar with Theravada vinaya to understand how this question relates to Buddhism

I would carefully read the Vinaya. We wouldn't want to overdo it. I knew a monk who used to drink his urine and he ended with bowel cancer and then he disrobed for a woman.

I hope I can post this without its being considered useful practical advice.
The Buddhist Monastic Code II: The Khandhaka Rules Translated and Explained says (added emphasis is mine),

A bhikkhu’s basic medicinal support is puti-mutta-bhesajja, which
  translates literally as “rancid urine medicine” (Mv.I.30.4). Strangely, none of the texts
  define the term. The commentaries to the Khuddakap›tha, Ud›na, and Sutta Nip›ta
  give an example of this sort of medicine—rancid urine with yellow myrobalan—but
  without a formal definition to indicate the full range of the term. The Sub-commentary
  to the Vinaya defines rancid urine as any sort of urine at all, citing as a parallel the Pali
  expression pÒti-k›ya, decomposing body, which refers to any human body, living or
  dead, “even one with golden skin.” However, it does not say whether rancid urine
  medicine is the rancid urine itself or, as suggested by the example from the
  commentaries, rancid urine in which medicinal fruits are pickled.
Because the texts are vague about this term, various oral traditions have developed
  around it. In Sri Lanka, rancid urine medicine is interpreted as rancid cow’s urine, in
  which different types of myrobalan are sometimes pickled. In Thailand, some
  Communities interpret it as one’s own first urine in the morning, following the ancient
  Indian tradition of using this urine as a tonic. (Modern scientists have discovered that
  this urine contains a high level of melatonin.) Given the silence of the texts, the best
  policy here is to follow the traditions of one’s own Community.

Also:

For snakebite: A medicine may be made of the “four great filthy things”: excrement,
  urine, ashes, and clay (!). [...]  None of the texts
  mention this point, but an oral tradition in Thailand asserts that the excrement to be
  used in this medicine should first be burnt in a fire.

Also:

For jaundice: Urine and yellow myrobalan are allowed, which the Commentary
  defines as yellow myrobalan pickled in cow urine. This raises the question: If this were
  the meaning of rancid urine medicine in the four supports, why would there be this
  special allowance?

ALso

(For drinking poison): “I allow that water
  mixed with excrement be drunk” (Mv.VI.14.6)

There are various discussions of how to use it and whether or not there's any reason it seems likely to be helpful, for example here. Someone suggested for example that the (non-Buddhist) Iberians in Roman times used it like toothpaste for bleeding gums.
Also this suggests why it's allowable -- it's not a luxury:

18.1. Mahākassapa
Anyone who makes use of
  Leftovers for food,
  Putrid urine as medicine,
  The root of a tree as lodging,
  And rags from the rubbish-heap as robes,
  Is at home in any direction.

In addition to Upasaka Chris's answer:

Cattāro nissayā - The Four Supports
“Going-Forth has fermented urine medicine as its support. For the rest of your life you are to endeavor at that.
“The extra allowances are: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar.”

To fill the grap, althought in German, the links lead to english resources.
chebulic myrobalan will be traditional pickled in ones Urine, and drunken. Still in use in conservative traditions.
As for dung, that is mentioned as emergency medication in cases of snake bits, where it is not necessary to be given it. There is no evidence that (ones own) fecal is used oral, althought my person came across that certain yogies in Tibetan traditiin use both as kind of asubha reflection and eat and drink out of this purpose the left overs...
My person would not encourage to use it, if not living very natural and with hardly maniputated food, since one refills one with a lot of chemicals again and again.
Medicinal doctors, therefore, becaus there is broadly so much pollution, seldom advocate it. Certain studies (mostly self studies) have been made.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

i wonder whats with the fermented quality...

Try it? :-) @Inb4dead Fresh it's not that disturbing. Did not come accross chebulic myrobalan at times to tell more known.

Since there have been cases where people grow disgusted, didn't want to ordain any more, the Buddha allowed to explain about the four supports after ordinatiin. (Story to be read in the link as well), Upasaka @Inb4dead

Is it possible that "fermented" is a mis-translation of "putrid", "discarded", "unwanted"?

i did try a glass, not bad as far as medicine goes.

As far as my person sees, the prickled fruits in it, seems to be the most evident and reasonable version, since this sour fruit might neutralice certain unwished., Nyom @ChrisW and is actually practiced not transfered by just words. Asian language is of course very imagining and not very complicated if knowing the image.

Did it help, Nyom @Inb4dead ?

Fwiw if left to ferment, the composition of the drink will change a lot as it comes out sterile but gets inhabited quickly by microorganisms. Also some things will evaporate and some things change a lot.

My person, not only out of that reason, would not really go for "fermented", @Inb4dead as he can not envision something useful.

It was about a year ago but yes it did help, i had at that time an infection and it cleared up very quickly, usually it would take a couple weeks. When i drank that fermented urine, the infection it cleared up in about a day. It might be a random coincidence but i would continue experimenting because i see nothing bad that can come from it and apparently the Buddha recommended it.

The discussion from Dhamma Wheel.
Feces from a healthy person is used as medicine.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=24762&hilit=urine&start=45


text:
I've always had a feeling that there is more to life and death. Is this normal?
Good morning,  to everyone,  I'm new to this site and only recently been very interested in Buddhism,  mainly because I have always believed in reincarnation,  but to be honest I didn't know other people had the same views.
So deep inside I have had this feeling but could not express how I feel to anyone as most people think I'm crazy.
But I am very interested in the life of how Buddhist lives and want to learn as much as I can regarding this religion.
Any help would be very much appreciated.  Thankyou

No, it is not strange to have such feelings. Even from a logical standpoint, thinking that experiencing does not end at death is the right thing to believe.
Here are some related videos:

Reincarnation and Nibbana
Karma and Reincarnation

But make sure you do not fall into the extreme of eternalism - believing that a person goes from life to live or taking the mental stream of thoughts as a soul.

first of all let me congratulate you for having this feeling bcs many are in the drunken state of life issues. the very existing you now is the greatest proof that you existed previously and have gathered causes to enable you in rebirth. learning truth of rebirth is rejoicing bcs we aasure ourselves that i am going to be there in next birth after i will be dead in this birth. The deathfear is slightly smoothened . But according to buddha ,  there is rebirth or it is not there also. whole thing depend on you. if you are content in this life and also hope the same shall be in next life also then go on happily. But a little fraction of the futility of life comes to know you though temporarily through any means for e.g love break,cheating partner,loss in career ,deceived by friend or may be due to unknown reasons then the search begins to get rid of causes causing this. then the knowledge begins , what are the causes for getting this life . when learnt ,one strives to avoid them to avoid next birth. buddha's teachings are for this only. i suggest to read "art of living by william harts ,a very convincing analysis of buddha's teachings as taught by goenka guruji who is in lineage of lady sayadaw,sayagyi u ba khin . as per my personal experience i immediately grasped the analysis and feel blessed for  developing faith in the teachings of buddha. hoping and heartily wishing to develop the same in you also.bcs we are all diseased and once the diagnosis is done treatment can be done by a neighbourhood chemist also.

There isn't more to life and death.  Buddhism, at its heart, is living and dying wholeheartedly.  Nothing more.

A quest for a spiritual side to life is normal for human beings, as contrary to animals we have not only a body but also a soul. So, if as you are saying you always have had a feeling that there is more to life and death - this is normal.

Strangely, this is a non-buddhist view!  Buddhism, via anatta, repudiates the soul, and moreover acknowledges the rebirth of animals. We have all been born as animals many times.


text:
Speaking falsehood is sinful. Does it mean speaking is the truth is no sinful?
Sometimes by speaking truth, we fall into trouble. For example, my college is lazy in cleaning living room. When I tell, he is lazy, he becomes angry and speak no longer. So speaking truth can sometimes inflict on other. Please correct my opinion.

This page has extracts from a dozen suttas, which explain what "Right Speech" is.
Being "truthful" is an aspect, but  not the only aspect, of Right Speech: for example speech should also be affectionate and spoken with a mind of good-will, beneficial, and spoken at the right time. Also polite, not divisive, and so on.

I am searching for the wise answer and advice. Now I find on this page. To some extent, it’s grateful to read various opinions around the world. Though I know about the Teachings of the Buddha in traditional ways, or Eastern Asia Thought, I am week to think critically like Westerners. That’s why I enter this page as soon as I see it. I request Samana Johann to give your wisely advice in simple English.

Thank you ChrisW for showing your kind remark. I need to learn more about Buddhism in modern way. This page will help me I think.

@UEainMyanmar You're welcome. Samana Johann doesn't write simple English (English isn't his first language). I edited his post to make it grammatical, maybe (I don't know) now it's easier to understand or easier to translate. I think I understood what was written if you have any specific question[s] about it? In summary, he wrote: 1) Tell the truth 2) That may be disagreeable but don't worry about that too much 3) If truth-telling causes too much disagreement then you may stay silent 4) What is your motive? Are you doing it (criticising) in order to be compassionate, or are you being selfish?

Thanks again ChrisW. Now I come to understand main points. Great!

It's not akusala (i.e. bad, unwholesome, unskillful) on its own to speak the truth.
But of course, as you have seen, U Eain Myanmar, it can be unpleasant: and therefore it's allowed and OK to not speak at all, first having checked (i.e. depending on) the other person or the assembly to which one speaks (if drawing from the Vinaya, which is a good guideline for everyone).

Dukkathā Sutta: Unpleasant talk
Bhikkhus, five kinds of talks are unpleasant varying from person to person. What five?...

As for the case of criticism, which is (if not selfishly motivated) a compassionate action, to be most effective one should not only
speak out of compassion;
it's also best to have no faults as well, to be free from faults;
and to speak with digestible words.
If only speaking as a claim, like if one has a burden with another's disability, that should be not seen as a good cause to speak out even the truth.

So does, "Don't speak out your mind just for your gains, and endure unpleasant things having fallen to you! For whom if not for yourself did you speak?", make you angry? Even a matter to do no more speaking with my person? If so, why?
The Buddha and the wise prefer truth over "harmony" or equanimity: and telling faults and making amends is very important:

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, “These worthless men, having spent the Rains uncomfortably, claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.
“Having spent the Rains in cattle-like affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.
“Having spent the Rains in sheep-like affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.
“Having spent the Rains in heedless-affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.
“How can these worthless men undertake a vow of dumb silence, the undertaking of sectarians?

Therfore, only a fool, not a wise is not pleased when getting reasonable and compassionate treatment by a critic:

Regard him as one who
         points out
         treasure,
  the wise one who
  seeing your faults
         rebukes you.
  Stay with this sort of sage.
  For the one who stays
  with a sage of this sort,
         things get better,
         not worse.
Let him admonish, instruct,
      deflect you
  away from poor manners.
  To the good, he's endearing;
  to the bad, he's not.

Why, living in Burma, does one seeks for advices on global trade and exchange places!?
Perhaps you can approach good monks, possible not far, and ask.

There is a nice story of the Hermit and the Rabbit -- in regard of judging, intent and defilements of greed, hatred, delusion and fear that might effect one's intention.

“The Great Hermit Saves the Tiger’s Life” (PRBK 2001: 3, 1).54 Here, rabbit judges
  without bias the case of the great hermit and the tiger. This folktale describes a great hermit who saves the life of a tiger bitten while sleeping in front of a snake’s hole, but the ungrateful tiger wants to eat him anyway. Therefore, they go off to find a judge who will settle their dispute. The first judge is a jackal. His bias is partially caused by love or desire (chandāgati). He says to himself, “If I judge the tiger and lose the case, I won’t be able to depend on his power in this forest.” Not accepting this judgment they go to the second judge, a cow. He is prejudiced by fear (bhayāgati). He reckons that, “If I do not help the tiger, he will hate me and eat me.” Being dissatisfied with that judgment, they go to the third judge, a monkey. His bias is caused by hatred or enmity (dosāgati). He thinks that, “In the past, a man had fallen into a well and my father helped him, however that crafty man ate my father.” Disagreeing with that judgment, they go to the fourth judge, a buzzard, who is prejudiced by greed or desire (lophāgati). He thinks that, “Today I frequently get my food from the remains of the tiger’s meal. If I judge that the tiger should lose the case, he will be angry with me; and how can I get the food from him?” Being dissatisfied with that discernment, they go to the fifth judge, a tree spirit. He is prejudiced by delusion or stupidity (mohāgati). He decides that, “People walking to the forest and taking shelter always break and cut off the leaves so I will judge that the tiger wins the case.” The last judge is the rabbit who is independent and neutral (sugatigamanam). He orders the tiger to go back to where the original event had taken place and if the tiger remains unbitten by the snake, he wins. Rabbit was not intimidated by the tiger’s physical power. He judged wisely, excluding love, hatred, greed, and delusion. It is clear that these four concepts are taken from the Buddhist ideas of how to be a good ruler or king. That is to say the good king and ruler must conduct his duties according to them (Payutto 1996: 24). A comparison between Judge Rabbit and the other animals and supernatural judges—cow, wolf, buzzard, tree spirit, and monkey—indicates that only the rabbit is an impartial judge. He represents the wisest one.

At least my person likes to add that, unlike what's commonly believed, giving favour and pleasure is not a factor of awakening ... while sacca (truthfulness) is. As long a person prefers pleasure and binding over truthfulness, he/she is incapable of developing the eightfold path, even to develop metta: his/her heart would be still corrupted, and gravely attached and bound. Of course such might gain large gatherings, and a following, for a while, in the world, but not toward liberation.
That's again a reason why wise prefer a smart "opponent" over a foolish "friend".
So if one again draws a guide, in regard of relations, from Buddha's ways for his community:
He urged first to criticise wrong actions, made it to a duty; and second, since people got beaten up, allowed them to refrain from criticism, after testing the gathering, if guessing that they will not be able to speak truthfully.
In fact he said you can also consider the "power" by different actions to be taken, which may vary depending on the different numbers of people on the right side.

“Monks, I allow four or five to protest, two or three to voice an opinion, and one to determine, ‘This is not agreeable to me.’”

Note that when not speaking, the thought that "This is not agreeable to me." is most important: since tolerating unskillful deeds even by thoughts, is unskillful kamma.
On the other side it's also usual to ask for leave (unusual to request permission) before accusing someone of a fault. More on that, if liking to adopt, one finds in
IV. Pavāraṇākkhandhako: The Invitation Khandhaka.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

Redone censured, Nyom @ChisW : Thats importand part of the answer, to make the questioner see himself and understand. Be seeing within oneself one understands, wisdom arises.

Questions should be welcomed from all countries, including Buddhist countries (Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and so on). You shouldn't criticize him for asking. 2) The site's Be nice policy says "Rudeness and belittling language are not okay" and "Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions"; implying that the OP may be greedy and lazy, because they asked a question about Right Speech, isn't being nice.

Suggesting they could ask a monk may be good advice but isn't an answer to the question. The Answers vs Advice says, "The best answers deal directly and solely with the question(s) specifically asked in the first place ... Avoid inadvertently invalidating the question, e.g. with answers of the form 'That's the wrong question...' ... In general, unless you actually are the questioner's teacher, don't assume a teacher's mantle."

@ChrisW you did not get the point 1) 2nd assume an insult... and 3rd don't see we are right here and now on give practical answer :-)

For these reasons I removed the question at the end of the answer which, to me, sounded hostile, unwelcoming, suspicious of their motives.

Let it be, its 100%right and you should know that Atma does nothing for lose or ill-willed. Relex, read again the whole, answer and question and rejoice in insight.

I'm not criticising your intention -- I'm editing the words to remove the suggestion that the OP's asking a question implies they're greedy or lazy. If you'd prefer to edit it yourself instead of me editing it, to remove that suggestion (that their posting here from Burma implies they're too greedy or lazy), then please do.

While Nyom @ChrisW by editing now suggest that asking direct in Burma gives better chances, my person prevers to call it a matter of greedy and lazy (no generosity, letting go) being the reason to do not develop into the path. Likewise when giving favor for own sake more importance as the truth: e.g. speech of traders. Thats a gathering of sheeps. Others the to call ones mare lazy because burdened by it and hoping to get benefit from it, my person does not have any benefit from changing him to not greedy, not lazy. Understand the answer now and this manifould message in regard of critic?

So I think you wrote that your person prefers to suggest the OP may be greedy and lazy; and yes it's true that your person will not benefit from that. But the rules-as-written for this site ask you to refrain from saying so; and the moderators insist that posts must avoid sounding rude to other persons who ask and answer questions (e.g. should not attack the character or motive of the person). Also, someone told me recently that (in his opinion) students should not be criticised or bullied for asking questions. That's all, and thank you for the insights you explained in the rest of the answer!

chandāgati? bhayāgati? lophāgati? mohāgati? sugatigamanam?

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

Abhaya Sutta

Speaking false is obviously sinful. Telling truth is not a sin. The next action which happen can be not good when speaking truth. So the best thing is to be quiet at those situations. If you are speaking false in order to get rid of obstacles it is far more valueble to tell truth and welcome the difficulty. Because karma for speaking false is very much dangerous than small problem you face in this life


text:
Meaning of the Pali-word "sampajanasi"?
In the Parayanavagga,Gatha #93, the Buddha says to Dhotaka: "Yam kinci sampajanasi"
What is the exact meaning of the word sampajanasi ?

Sampajāna

It means to 'know' or have an intelligent understanding of something as being true. So when the Buddha says "yam kinci sampajanasi..." it means "whatever you know...".

Here is a version of the text with English and Pali side-by-side   https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Parayanavagga/Parayanavaggo.pdf

Having a clear understanding is the meaning of that


text:
How accurate is Ozamu Tetsuka "Buddha" with the real biography of Buddha?
Ozamu Tetzuka wrote a comic about Buddha.
I read that and is quite impressed.
However, some of the element may not be true. And based on what I read, I tell some stories in it, and my friends are offended.
Some of the elements:

Parents of buddha pamper sidartha with women even when he was a child. Such act would be considered child abuse in western world though most males would think, "nice"
There are some characters that are obviously fictional.

I wonder what are the differences between Buddha the manga and the "real" buddha?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_(manga)

Better than to pull people into comics might be to let the Buddha and his disciples pull you out to know his stories. After that it may be of use if you give an answer on that.

Since Ozamu Tatsuka is Japanese, it should be noted that in Japanese forms of Buddhism, there has been a cartoon-esque depiction of masters and even the Buddha since the earliest forms of Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism were introduced in Japan in the 12th century, the most famous ones by Hakuin:

Japanese Zen is infamous for its self-degradation, stemming from the principle that "either nothing is to be considered divine, or everything is". This is well-expressed in the Kanshiketsu (乾屎橛) Koan:

A monk asked, "what is Buddha?"
Unmon answered "A dry shit stick"

One of the main themes in the manga expresses a concept from Mahayana Buddhism (Japanese schools of Buddhism are almost exclusively of the Mahayana tradition) that wouldn't have been a concept in the original teachings of the Buddha.
Looking at the main characters, many names appear in historical and/or mythological texts on the Buddha's life, as demonstrated by the direct links to historical or mythological Wikipedia pages. The use of fictional characters is also not new in Mahayana Buddhism. The best example is Wu Cheng'En's Journey to the West, featuring the Monkey King, Brother Sand and a talking pig.
I think the manga should be seen in the tradition of Wu Cheng'En and Hakuin, using fiction and humor mixed with teaching to convey the central message. While this may offend more "traditional" schools of Buddhism, it is actually the purpose of the "Sudden Teaching" to pierce preconceptions to allow Kenshō.

Oh I laughed. The quote is brilliant :)


text:
Do we believe psychic and supernatural powers of Buddha?
I have read from scriptures about psychic and supernatural powers of Buddha and arahats: for example, just after birth the Buddha walked some steps on lotus flowers, elevated during meditation in his childhood, occurrence of earthquake when he touched the earth at the moment of enlightenment, ability to spread water and fire, communication with gods without physical body, ability to read mind of others, recall past lives etc.
The above are accepted only based on our faith to Buddha is reasonable: but in front of rationalists' point of view the above can't be explained; and so,

Do we have to maintain silence as Buddhists?
Do supernatural and psychic phenomena really exist, if so why does nobody take the challenge of rationalists (see e.g. List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal)

I mean not "psychic powers" up to Buddha's level; just for example to describe precisely certain object in a black box (also refer to Abraham Kovoor's challenge).

When you ask "do we believe" -- are you asking everyone, every user on this site, for their personal opinion? Or are you asking for (for example) any specifically Theravada doctrine, perhaps with a reference to something published by a monk?

"We" can not do anything, and to use such is just a low disputer trick to win favor. Do as you are fit. And be informed, that certain people have the capacity to know clear anothers state of mind and thought, e.g. have "psychical powers", knowing your self or not. Maybe the Uruvela stories help, not only in regard of its purpose but also that pride people are even not easy to impressed by special powers...

You are basically saying "I have doubts about the Buddha's supernatural powers. Can someone prove them to me?". Nobody can do this for you unless the Buddha himself comes and show you. But that's not going to happen. So you have few options to appease your mind.

Meditate on the doubt until you realize that it's just another mental state that arises and falls and that holding on to it is useless and does not lead you to freedom from suffering.
Take it on faith, accepting the fact that you are not capable of knowing all that is possible with your current state of mind. And then do #1.
Do Samatha meditation, follow the instructions given in the Visuddhimagga that lead to attaining magical powers.
Waste your life trying to scientifically prove or disprove whether supernatural powers are real or not.

Good advices, Sadhu!


text:
Thoughts and meditation.
Meditation as a whole states that 'Remain untouched to what goes in the mind. Let front door and back door be opened. Don't serve tea to the thoughts.' But at some point it is pretty confusing that do i really need to remain untouched to the thoughts. Like sometimes, the thoughts of the spirits, gods comes into the mind. Do they need to be discarded? But, as we know the mind in itself never stops thinking.

It means you should not attach to things while information is flowing into your mind. So you should basically act as a dormant observer, but at the same time be open to any feelings and experiences flowing through you. When you interpret information during meditation using your physical brain (ego mind), you are basically altering your brainwave patterns (lowering your alpha waves) which may destroy your entire meditative state.

Image source: brainwave-meditation.net

Not "discarded" no. Just not touched. That's why they said leave front and back doors open. So they can enter and exit. You don't have to chase them away.
But yeah, some thoughts can be very cool and interesting. And the more you meditate, more interesting they get :)
It is very tempting to think about some of them...
It doesn't mean you should stop them or not stop them, or be guilty, or proud. Just remain open and don't serve tea to the thoughts, I love that expression.

A variation on that take is here (Rumi was Sufi, not Buddhist, but I suppose the cartoonist might be Buddhist).

OMG Buddha would have certainly used this to ridicule a dumb approach to meditation.

What does it mean to not remain touch? Enlighten please. My mind goes into imagination during meditation thinking of something. Though i've symptoms of Kundalini awakening but seems hard to manage sometimes.

It means you just sit and watch it. Don't go with thoughts, don't go against thoughts.

It may not ever truly stop, but the frequency and allure of thought does become so subdued as to be utterly negligible.  It just takes time and a lot of practice to get there.  It's a mistake to believe that only thoughtless meditation is valuable.  All meditation is.  After all, you have to start somewhere.
And yes, let go of all thought.  That includes thoughts of gods and spirits.  They are only thoughts as vivid and striking as they sometimes can be.

Idon't mean to stop the thought but how do i know if i'm aware of those thoughts.

Not sure I'm following.  Could you put that a different way?

Meditation as a whole states that 'Remain untouched to what goes in the mind. Let front door and back door be opened. Don't serve tea to the thoughts.'

Meditation as a whole states that 'Remain untouched to the other objects goes in the mind, except just one meditation-object such as breath of ānāpānassati. Let front door and back door be opened for those other objects until they still not disturb your meditation. Don't serve the other teas to the thoughts. Let the thoughts go on meditation-object only.'
Samatha-meditation-object is unwholesome-mind's direct enemy, such as breath of ānāpānassati-meditation (distraction's and doubt's enermy), inner foods of āhārepaṭikūlasaññā-meditation (food attachment's enemy), etc.
Vipassanā-meditation-object is 3 characteristics of whole arising and vanishing effects which are caused by causes.

But at some point it is pretty confusing that do i really need to remain untouched to the thoughts. Like sometimes, the thoughts of the spirits, gods comes into the mind. Do they need to be discarded?

Samatha-meditation: yes, at all, except just meditation's object.
Vipassanā-meditation: while vipassanā meditation going on, the practitioner analyses spirits, gods as 5 aggregates then he focus on 5 aggregates' 3 characteristics. So, if the practitioner's thoughts are not processing like that, now he is a wanderer, not practitioner.

But, as we know the mind in itself never stops thinking.

So, the practitioner must (1) avoids the unwholesome-thought's physical actions by the virtual, then (2) avoids the unwholesome-thought's objects by samatha-meditation, jhāna, and then (3) destroys attachments with whole possible-arising-chance of unwholesome-thought by vipassanā-meditation.


text:
What titles apply to non-monastic/lay Buddhists? (upasaka/upasika savaka/sravaka)
Labels are illusions like all conditioned phenomena, but I have an attachment to taxonomy and being able to describe myself accurately. I'm working on that, but in the meantime, I thought this would be a good question for the stack.
How best can people describe themselves in the hierarchy/ecology of believers if they aren't living the monastic life of the Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuṇī (monk/nun), but still consider themselves as living a life driven by the dhamma?
I personally identify as Theravada/Pali canon/early Bhuddism, but an answer specifying Mahayana/Vajrayana titles is also welcome!
Ideally I'd like Pali words and their best English equivalents, but obviously including Sanskrit versions too would be polite (^_^)
BONUS POINTS: My gender is non-binary (genderqueer/agender) and thus I really need a title that can apply to me without need to specify gender. If I ever become a monastic I will really have my work cut out for me and/or a need to compromise, but for any non-monastics with non-binary gender, which titles are functional for us?

Welcome and Bienvenue to the site. You may like to read that this site has a few non-standard policies, which are summarised and indexed here.

Thanks Chris. Seems like my question and answer are safe but please let me know if I can do better :)

What is meant by "non-binary gender", physical or just mental confused?

Samana here is the relevant Wikipedia article:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer
So that you know, "mental confused" as a description of transgender people is not acceptable and considered very rude.
The question I believe you are trying to ask is whether I am intersex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex) or not, to which my answer is that it isn't relevant because my gender identity is what is important, not my genitalia.

People are welcome to discuss gender in one of the chat rooms or elsewhere.

You might find https://discourse.suttacentral.net/ interesting, since they make their livelihoods on gender issues. As for the rest, no answer can be given to one not able to be straight and very pride. As for eventually able to become monk, very important and relevant. While mental confusing could be healed stronger manifestations can not.

@SamanaJohann thank you for the link to suttacentral, I found compassionate consideration of trans people’s role in Buddhism quickly there. I guess you are referring to the fact that I am effectively identifying as a pandaka which seems about right in fact (though it can apply both for psychological and physiological reasons it seems). To go forth I would need to find a monastic order reformist enough to welcome pandakas or I wouldn’t want to join.

I am a  non-binary bi-romantic asexual. I used a male title when I ordained. Because the very girlish person, such as person who go around to fuck with the other male monastic members in vinaya-pitaka, was denied to  ordain in buddhism. They can be just a lay. In commentary, some kind of girlish people can ordain but some can not. It  depend on their physical body.
http://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=04&A=3481&eng=suttacentral

So to answer my own question, with Theravada emphasis, there are two main categories that apply to non-monastics:
TODO: Add "uninstructed worldling" as an option for fun. Research "Bhauddhaya"
Upāsaka (masculine) or Upāsikā (feminine)

Translates to "attendant" and means "devout follower". (Wikipedia link)
Specifically refers to people who are not part of a monastic order.

Śrāvaka (Sanskrit) / Sāvaka (Pali) : Masculine or Śrāvikā (Sanskrit) / Sāvikā (Pali) : Feminine

Translates to "hearer" and means "disciple" (Wikipedia link)
Transcends monastic-lay divisions and can refer to anyone from the following "four assemblies":

bhikkhus ("monks")
bhikkuṇīs ("nuns")
upāsakas and upāsikā (laypersons)

Does not describe Mahāyāna Buddhists: As noted in the  "Mahāyāna view" section of the Savaka wikipedia article, the word "śrāvakas" has a very precise connotation when used in the Mahāyāna context, which implies that "śrāvaka" means someone "set on their own liberation, and cultivating detachment in order to attain liberation". I.e. Theravada Buddhists seeking nibbana, in contrast to Mahāyāna Buddhists following the Bodhisattva path to "liberation of all beings".

Saddhānusārī

Translates to "faith follower"
Mentioned in Cakkhu Sutta: The Eye (Pali)

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

Based on this, it seems to imply a very high minimum level of attainment to qualify, as you would have to be very precisely a sotapanna-magga (on the path to stream entry) with a guarantee of becomming sotapanna-phala (accomplishing stream entry) within your current lifetime.
Strikes me as a title that few would ever want to apply to themselves, and essentially equivalent to sotapanna-magga, though I am not clear yet on whether sotapanna-magga explicitly means you will accomplish stream entry in the current life or not.

Conclusion: Savaka describes all Theravada Buddhists
So it seems, the best, most generic term that applies to any non-Mahāyāna Buddhist, regardless of gender or role is Savaka, a disciple of Buddha with unspecified gender but also unspecified role as monastic or lay person.
If you have male or female gender, you would be both a Savaka and a Upāsaka or Upāsikā.
If you are part of a monastic order then you are also a Bhikkhu or Bhikkuṇī
If you can lay claim to any spiritual attainments then you can also use a variety of words to describe these achievements. These include Saddhānusārī, and of course the Four stages of enlightenment, for example the most accessible stage, Sotapanna.

Savaka is broadly used to refer to thos well-following, e.g. Noble ones in southern/early Traditions, denoting those beyond "just" attending, "children of the Sakyan"

That means if calling your self Savaka is seen as claiming an attainment broadly, as for SEAsian communities. They bow daily to the Savaka-Sangha.

It makes sense they bow down to the savaka sangha because that includes both the lay and monastic communities.

In terms of "savaka" meaning "noble follower" that seems more linked with "ariyasāvaka" as mentioned in the savaka wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Ar%C4%81vaka#Ariyas%C4%81vaka
It seems there's precedent for "savaka", used on it's own, including those merely intending to be on the path (e.g. sotāpatti-magga)

Also, sravaka explicitly identifies the person as non-mahayana follower. I believe that's what you want, so we are fine here.

Andrei: That's an interesting point. Is that because of the meaning that Savaka includes the concept of seeking nibbana, rather than being a Bodhisattva?

There's a text (I don't know how many others) where "the Hearer family" is distinguished from "the Mahayana family" -- I'm not sure why -- I think the three distinguishing "marks" stated there are "afraid of samsara" and "yearning for nibbana" and "little interest in benefiting sentient beings".

Okay, yeah, thanks @ChrisW, I read this in the Savaka wikipedia article ("Mahāyāna view" section). So it seems that it's the same word, which is pretty generic, but for Mahāyāna followers, it's a kind of "slur" against Theravada followers, associated with the doctrinal disagreements, rather than with it's original meaning.

I've updated the Savaka section with a summary of what seems to be the case with Mahāyāna views on śrāvaka. If anyone sees a problem with it let  me know. I've also added Saddhānusārī from Dean A's answer with some context about why I don't think it's a good fit for me or most people.

@jerclarke If it is (or was) a "slur against", IMO it's about "Hinayana" not "Theravada".

I am not sure that I may be read your last paragraph correctly. IMO, your conclusion should be: sāvaka-male=(bhikkhu-male-monastic + upāsaka-male-lay) and sāvikā-female= (bhikkunī-female-monastic + upāsikā-female-lay). When they are saddhānusārī ariya, they will be ariya-sāvaka/ariya-sāvikā.

@Bonn I never found a reference to the savaka/savika gender divide, so I assume there isn't one. Do you have a reference for that? It seems "hearer" doesn't mention gender.

My point in the final paragraph was just that saddhānusārī only applies to those with accomplishments, and so isn't usually a good answer to my question about lay people.

Ok, I will edit your post with pāli reference. You can read my answer over there. And after edit, I will copy to my blog. So, just feel free to accept or to deny my edition.

In my added pali link, you can found "sāvakānaṃ  bhikkhūnaṃ" and "sāvikānaṃ  bhikkhunīnaṃ".

you might get a few answers but here is my thought:
Śrāvaka (Sanskrit) or Sāvaka (Pali) means "hearer" or, more generally, or"disciple", or "one who sits near", "one who lend ears"
Gender neutral and describes all level of achievements.

Thanks! I wrote my own answer up with more detail, but yours is exactly right and the same conclusion I came to. Gonna keep editing mine hopefully and add more details :)

Come to think of it, savaka were also used for followers of other great 8 religions at Buddha's time too.   It doesn't give clear answer as what one listens to.  I'm a savaka but a savaka to whom?  Chris' answer might be a more direct hit.  Good luck.

I’d be a Buddha savaka presumably, just like I follow the Dhamma and that’s the right word, even though really I should specify “Buddha Dhamma” in some cases.

There's Saddhānusārī translated "faith follower".
And Dhammānusārī translated "follower of the law".
According to SN 25.1 these appear to be on the road to stream entry.

Thanks these are interesting new answers! I’ll add them to my big answer as further options.