text:
Killing a terrorist by official government army consider as bad karma?
Government army need to follow orders by Government. In the war, army has to kill the terrorists. That is the nature of war and defeating terrorists is their job.
So is it consider as  bad karma?
I know some army mens who killed more than 100 terrorists. What will happen for them in next life?

Possible duplicate of Can Buddhism give any justification for military violence?

Why would anyone "need" to follow orders from anyone? Of course it's bad karma. If your job requires you to do wrong that doesn't mean the employee is free of any bad karma they do on behalf of they're employers.

Whole life killing attention is bad kamma, no exception. Even though that bad kamma causes some little good effects. Because killing directly causes bad effect, such as unwholesome mind factors, life's death, etc. Also side effects of killing cause many variant bad effects, too, such as vengeance. Actually, only one killing causes more than ten enemies' vengeance: parents' vengeance, brothers', sisters', aunts', uncles', grandpas', grandmas', partners', sons', daughters', friends', etc.
For the example:
Some americans thought bin laden killing can causes terrorism's cessation. But the fact appearing that we still face the terrorism.
So, buddha said:

Na hi verena verni, sammantīdha kudācanaṃ
Unwholesome (akusalakammapatha, such as vengeance) never ceased by the unwholesome (akusalakammapatha, such as vengeance).

For the last question:

I know some army mens who killed more than 100 terrorists. What will happen for them in next life?

It is answered by Nirayasuttaṃ:

018.03. Bhikkhus, endowed with five things the lay disciple is in hell as though led and lain. What five?
Destroying living things, taking the not given, misbehaving in sexual
  desires, telling lies and taking intoxicated and brewed drinks
  Bhikkhus, endowed with these five things the lay disciple is in hell
  as though led and lain there.
Bhikkhus, endowed with five things the lay disciple is in heaven as
  though led and lain there. What five?
Abstaining, from destroying living things, taking the not given,
  misbehaving in sexual desires, telling lies and taking intoxicated and
  brewed drinks Bhikkhus, endowed with these five things the lay
  disciple is in heaven as though led and lain there.

In the Yodhajiva Sutta, we find that the warrior who has the intention to kill and does exert himself to kill, would be reborn in hell or as an animal:

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. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior
  strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
  slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
  the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
  devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two
  destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or
  the animal womb."

On the other hand, protection is OK (from DN16):

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."

In Buddhism, kamma is based on intention. What was the intention of exemplary Buddhist King Asoka? We can see this from The Edicts of King Asoka:

Beloved-of-the-Gods speaks: thus This Dhamma edict was written
  twenty-six years after my coronation. Happiness in this world and the
  next is difficult to obtain without much love for the Dhamma, much
  self-examination, much respect, much fear (of evil), and much
  enthusiasm. But through my instruction this regard for Dhamma and love
  of Dhamma has grown day by day, and will continue to grow. And my
  officers of high, low and middle rank are practicing and conforming to
  Dhamma, and are capable of inspiring others to do the same. Mahamatras
  in border areas are doing the same. And these are my instructions:
  to protect with Dhamma, to make happiness through Dhamma and to guard with Dhamma.
All men are my children. What I desire for my own children, and I
  desire their welfare and happiness both in this world and the next,
  that I desire for all men. You do not understand to what extent I
  desire this, and if some of you do understand, you do not understand
  the full extent of my desire.
Truly, I consider the welfare of all to be my duty, and the root of
  this is exertion and the prompt despatch of business. There is no
  better work than promoting the welfare of all the people and whatever
  efforts I am making is to repay the debt I owe to all beings to assure
  their happiness in this life, and attain heaven in the next.
Therefore this Dhamma edict has been written to last long and that my
  sons, grandsons and great-grandsons might act in conformity with it
  for the welfare of the world. However, this is difficult to do without
  great exertion.

One of the five basic Buddhist precept says:
“abstain from harming living beings”
No matter if they are terrorists or monks. Killing is wrong.
I suggest not to worry about what will happen to killers on their next lives, but rather, on the current one. They are getting away from the path of virtue and kindness.

Buddhism is all about develop wisdom and wholesome moral and see things as it is. Terrorists are psychopaths suffer from unknown mental decoders due to cling to wrong and unwholesome views. If you respond to them  using same methods you don't have difference with them. Just implement and use your wisdom to catch them alive(by firing chemical filled syringes and paralyze) or unconscious(by spreading some gas) and examine and investigate mindset and give proper medicines(defeat their wrong,unethical,immoral and unwholesome ideologies) and counselling(brain wash) using Buddhist teaching for them. killing is not the solution. Don't use lazy and easy way by killing them.Just rehabilitate them as humans. teach them(or brain wash) What is metta,five precept,kindness,eight fold path,four noble truths and Nirvana. That's must be the duty of human worrier in universal army. And this called uncommon wisdom. Don't kill them just cure them.

If you killing for job is wrong. when you kill to follow commands mean you are victim of "induced hate and evil. you are trained to respond to hate with hate(killing intention) Do you agree with me boss?

Once Buddha states in Dhammapada "Hate is not conquer by hate. Hate is  conquer by metta(loving kindness). It's an universal law. So be a worrier of universal army. For respond to hate with metta needs lot of wisdom. hope you satisfied with answer and welcome to Buddhism.

Your answer is saying psychopaths are more important than humans (because terrorists cannot be cured). Have you watched videos of terrorists in Iraq & Syria cutting off people's heads & raping women? Your post might lead a few people Nirvana but, from a practical worldly point of view, it is ridiculous (unless you can provide evidence terrorists can be cured using your methods). Those who reach Nibbana do not cure people. Instead, they are detached from the world.

there are witness for terrorists rehabilitation. (E.g in Sri lanka) I am not consider the importance of psychopaths and they can be cured. Each and every terrorist can't be rehabilitated,cured and transformed in practical. I meant we have to strive it with our wisdom. There is nothing to perfection. That's why it need lot of courage and wisdom. That's why I have mentioned respond to hate,evil,ignorance,violence with harmony,kindness and metta need lot of effort,wisdom and courage. fire only extinguish by water.never by fire.

Were they terrorists in Sri Lanka or just local people fighting a civil war? And when did the rehabilitation occur? Was it AFTER the war was won? Your ideas are unrelated to the Buddhist view about worldly affairs. The Dhammapada is only for serious practitioners and not for the world. Buddhism does not teach families to let terrorists murder their children. Buddhism is silent about this and lets lay people make their own decisions. I think your answer is extremely naive & unrelated to wisdom.

1)The Dhammapada is only for serious practitioners- This is wrong view.2)Buddhism does not teach families to let terrorists murder their children-you are dragging this question to different way. The original question is about military respond to terrorists ( respond to hate with hate)

Were they terrorists in Sri Lanka or just local people fighting a civil war? Definition of terrorist - individuals who use intimidation and violence in the pursuit of political aims(as per oxford dictionary) and you decide after reading history of 30 years old war.

Was it AFTER the war was won? you think that war was won by gun. it's not . just kill some humans.

My view about the Dhammapada is not wrong view. The Dhammapada itself says: 59. Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.& 174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight.

In the Jataka Tales in the Buddhist Canon, there is the story of the Buddha-To-Be in a past life who killed a would-be murderer to save 500 people, as follows:

And he thought, ‘if I were to kill this person, I would likewise burn in the great hells for one hundred-thousand eons because of it. Yet I
  can bear to experience the pain of the great hells, that this person
  not slay these five hundred merchants and develop so much evil karma.
  I will kill this person myself. Accordingly, the
  captain Great Compassionate protected those five hundred merchants and
  protected that person from going to the great hells, by deliberately
  stabbing and slaying that person who was a robber with a spear, with
  great compassion and skill in means.

The results of kamma is are known in the heart. If the terrorists are real terrorists then those who act to protect innocent people from terrorists are not really performing bad karma. While a cleanser of terrorists may feel stress & trauma, they can always reassure themselves they did a deed to protect people.
For example, in many civil wars, such as in Sri Lanka, it is difficult to judge if one-side is righteous. But in pure terrorism, it is without dispute that terrorism is evil. In other words, any person killing unarmed civilians is a terrorist. The Dhammapada states:

137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten
  states:
138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges,
  loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging
  fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.

The Pali suttas state it is the duty of the government to provide protection for the people, as follows:

But what, sire, is this Ariyan 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.
DN 26

In Buddhism, monks are forbidden to kill a person or instruct to kill a person, for any reason. But for Buddhist laypeople, taking life is a training rule rather than a commandment. Buddhism does not prohibit people from doing their duty to protect their family & nation. A monk informs people about the potential results of their actions (kamma); that is all.
The Buddha taught kamma is intention. If killing is done from a greedy or hateful intention, this is bad kamma. But if killing is done with compassion for life, this is not bad kamma.
The results of kamma are only known within the heart. The heart knows.
For example, the people in this video are heroes. It can be seen with the heart how their hearts have compassion rather than hatred & violence. These people defeated foreign terrorists & restored their nation to civility & normality (rather than harmed people). After they won, the many people celebrated Xmas & dancing with freedom, as shown in this video.


text:
How can we say no without giving explanations?
Let's say that a friend asks you if you want to go on a trip with him.
You have a bad feeling about it, your intuition raises a red flag. How do you say no without making up a fake excuse?
When I say "no, thanks for your offer but I don't feel like it." People tend to try to convince me, and I end up having to be cold. I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why."

I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why."

If that's what you feel, you should exactly say that. The more you allow yourself to relax and express what you really feel, without fear of judgement, the easier it becomes as you do it again and again, and you arrive at a place in your life when you can be truly yourself and happy, because you will be spontaneously manifesting your own true nature. Just a matter of getting comfortable and free from the grasp of fear and the control of preconceptions, and allowing yourself to be yourself.

If it's a bad idea and if you are his friend, you should try to convince him not to go too. Explain to him why it is a bad idea. If he listens to you, you would've done him a service as a true friend. If he does not listen, that's his Karma.

I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why."

Pondering your understanding in this particular situation and any subtle intentions or assumptions behind it could reveal a lot of hidden inner truth you might never have seen before.

You could say other things  like:
"I know it's weird but these intuitions are trips unto themselves"
"Do you have any ideas why I feel like this?"
"Speaking of trips, have you ever tried meditation?"

I like to believe that the truth should get our respect over our worries about how other people evaluate us.
I like to believe that if our friends have the wrong idea about us in the beginning, in the long run our true friends will realize the right idea about us. - Metta :)

Truthfully, you don’t owe an explanation. There is no obligation. If asked, then yes, be clear on what the issue is  or simply use something generic like “it’s a personal issue” or the like. If he is a true friend, there should already be a level of respect.
All the best.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How can I escape the suffering of losing my father?
One day my father will leave me. I love him a lot. It will cause suffering when he leaves.
How can I escape the suffering of losing my father?

I'm just saying,  it is not very usual for one to fear a future grief of a passing that has no obvious signs for it yet.  It is perhaps a sign of a faith based stream enterer where his (her) mind is towards the belief that 5 skandha are impermant.   Only you can tell if you are in the stream.   Buddha said faith based sotapana would not die before realized the full fruit of sotapana.  None the less,  they are still called sotapana

Is wishing to escape from inevitable dukkha a fear ? Would you not want cessation of Dukkha if it's possible ? I am not in stream. I have yet to give my full commitment to Buddhism,but I trust Buddha.

I don't know if Buddha called it a fear.  I'm trying to think what he called his feelings when he left his palaces because then he was looking for a way to escape pain and suffering too.  He mentioned tho,  uninstructed persons would seek pleasures as a way to escape suffering.   All beings,  us,animals , etc. don't want sufferings and most of us seek things that make us feel good and see it as path to end of suffering.

He began with compassion . He lived with compassion. He ended with compassion. Understanding the common suffering of all which is due Anicca. Cure is Anatta. Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. I do not understand the cure.

Most of my adult life (I am about 50 now) I was not close to my parents. A few years ago, a year after my mother died, I got divorced, had to start a new career etc. The only person who could take me in was my 80 year old father. It was very difficult and unpleasant for both of us, but he was having trouble walking, so he needed help anyway. I lived with him about a half a year until I found work. In following years I visited monthly and helped. Eventually he became infirm, very ill, died. But I had been closer to him those last few years, so when he declined, it was a natural change.

Search for the story of the woman who brought her dead child to the Buddha.

Let go of what is going to cause the suffering. I.e. your attachment towards him. Practice Satipattana meditation.

The way you express your feeling reminds me of a sutta where Buddha told story of how gods in heaven tremble in fear when they heard Buddha preached about impermanance. Or even a great horse sees a shadow of a whip. Since this a Q&A, Anatta is a cure.

Is it true that I am not a feeling of sadness nor  am I a feeling of sadness?I am just not present. I am trying to understand Anatta.

Try to behave virtuously, do what you can, and see the virtue of/in others.
Even when you want the world to be other than it is, I think it would be worse if on top of that you regretted your own past misbehaviour; conversely you may find it better if you had good relations.
I think that "recollection of virtue" (including generosity) appears frequently (e.g. here), in one form or another, as something of a consolation or support.

Can you illustrate by giving example how recollection of virtue can lead to disenchantment and dispassion?

I'm not sure it leads to disenchantment and dispassion; but I suppose it leads to satisfaction rather than dissatisfaction, sukha rather than dukkha. See also this comment for example.

Happy memories rather than unhappy ones. "Happy" isn't exactly the right word, though.

I only have happy memories. But recollecting those happy memories will only aggravate my suffering I guess. I do not get it , how recollection of virtue is going to assuage my suffering or fill the void which he is going to leave behind.

What if what he leaves behind is happy memories, the good he's done, the good you learned from him, and which he gave you occasion to practice? Maybe there are other answers (like Sankha's) but this depicts something of my own experience.

There was a story of a very accomplished monk in the Soto Zen tradition.  One day, he heard that his master had died.  He took the news with apparent ease.  At his funeral, he was composed - greeting well wishers, accepting their condolences, smiling, and even laughing.  This lasted for much of the memorial service.  Right before they were to take the body away for cremation, this monk when to the side of his masters coffin.  He began to sob uncontrollably.  All of the people in attendance began to look at him with mouths agape.  Realizing that he was being stared at and wise to the reason why - after all it's not often that you see a Zen master lose his composure so fully and unashamedly - the monk said to the onlookers:
"My master, who I have known all of my life, who I loved as deeply as my own father, has died.  If I want to cry, I'm going to cry."
Buddhist practice isn't Vulcanism.  It isn't about transcending our emotion and sitting in a tepid path of imperturbability.  Rather, Buddhist practice is about being openhearted.  It is about becoming fully and unashamedly intimate with the world.  If your father dies, of course you will suffer.  Why shouldn't you?  Allow yourself to experience the full extent of your grief.  Mourn wholeheartedly.  Anything short of that is a disservice both to your relationship with him and to your own feelings of love.

It is a beautiful answer. But where does the Buddha come into picture? If I want to cry I am going to cry until I bounce back naturally. What role does the knowledge play in such a situation ? Knowledge says if you cling to Son you will reappear on this planet to see your son. If you cling to Father then you will take rebirth to see your father. At some point one will have to accept that Father (or the son) has passed away into a different world. It is an everyday phenomenon. Lets get back to our work of escaping our own suffering.

@DheerajVerma: Great masters who have seen and experienced Anatta can let go.
Mere mortals when given such teaching, often subdue their emotions deep than letting it go.
Anatta is not about not feeling an emotion, but rather seeing it come and go, so your Sanna is conditioned to let go.

If your father was a good father to you (doing good karma), according to the Pali suttas, he will have a good rebirth. The Pali suttas say:

These beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and
  undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the
  break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good
  destinations, in the heavenly world.
MN 4

My father is still alive and he is a good father and for that I love him. Knowing that he will have a good rebirth when he passes away helps me to mitigate my feelings but I am afraid when he leaves me ,I will broken into pieces because I can't imagine a life without him. When Buddha left the world he left the people crying behind him. Similarly I feel I am going to suffer.

OK... then you are going to suffer. The Buddha said separation from the loved is suffering. Simply keep reflecting on that. The Buddha never taught each of us will end suffering.

You need to eventually face this suffering due to your attachment. Such attachment is usually deep seated.
But what may be helpful is to contemplate on anicca or impermanence.
For this, you can take A Walk in the Woods with Phra Khantipalo.
Also, read the story of Patacara in Dhammapada 113.

This is a difficult problem.  Although an arahant (enlightened person) would be free of grief in this situation, for the rest of us, sorrow is more or less inevitable.  There are a number of approaches.  One is to practice mindfulness of feelings, realizing that your feelings change from moment to moment.  Another is to realize that your father possesses the three marks of existence:  Suffering, Impermanence and Egolessness.

Like all other beings, his life is full of suffering, and to grasp onto him is to cause suffering.
His life is impermanent, which you have already shown some awareness of.  Being mindful now of this unavoidable fact will help you deal with it when the time comes.
He is not a self and does not possess a self.  He is composed of many things which themselves are composed of many things, and these things are always changing.

As mentioned by others, a regular meditation practice is also helpful for developing serenity and insight.

From the Dhammapada:

Sabbe sankhara anicca ti. yada pannaya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe. esa maggo visuddhiya

Every thing (experience specifically, since that is the primary) is ephemeral. And by experientially internalising that wisdom, one comes out of suffering. This is the path of purification.

Practice the Dharma. Whether our father goes first or we go first, ultimately we have to face impermanence one day. If our father goes first, we feel grief naturally, that is because we are attached to something-our father. Yet if we go first, we are presented with a huge fear, because of the unknown of death. Buddhism deals with all these grief and fear- sufferings. Thus one should practice Buddhism diligently and without doubt because we really don't want all these sufferings.

Your father is not his body, he is information, "spirit"(~attitude, character) - right? As you interact with him, this information enters your system. When your father dies, it will continue in you. Not grieving over your father, not clinging to his solid form, you will allow his qualities to freely manifest in yourself. So in a way you will become continuation of your father, of what was the best in him. In that sense, your father would never die. If you cling to his solid form, you will only block the process of "him" continuing in "you".

This may be an interesting answer from the fashionable modern-physics-inspired views, but it is not based on the Buddha's teachings.

@Tharpa The Buddha's doctrine included metaphors for Brahmins and other contemporaries -- maybe it's not wrong, maybe it's skillful, to [re]phrase in ways that make it accessible to modern "physicists". But when you said "not based on the Buddha's teaching" maybe you were referring to anatta and identity-view. But I suppose Andrei maybe isn't averse to the idea and practice of visualising one's self or qualities as those of something or someone else (see, for example, this answer).

@ChrisW  Yes, anatta means that there is no "essence" to the self.  I'm not opposed to Andrei's answer in a non-Buddhist context, just that it doesn't have anything to with the BuddhaDharma, since it assumes an essence.  Not to mention that I could critique it from a physics standpoint as well.  So it's not just a matter of using a modern metaphor, which I would have no problem with if it were apt.

@Tharpa - I edited the word "essence"  away. Does it look more palatable now?

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

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


text:
effectivness of removing triggers for temptations?
what is the  effectiveness of removing triggers for temptations (food, entertainment etc )  ?
i for example took apart the stationary (to avoid watch youtube videos for example for fun)  computer i have but after some time i reassembled it
if there wont be one attachment there would be others than even if less obvious attachments  -  can they be less bad ?
monks try to avoid this triggers as well i believe  (like asking woman to dress modest when visiting monasteries)  so i guess it has its merits
i wonder how much of a change to a practice this can make  - would love to hear general thoughts on this subject

I find it effective.
I wrote this answer about quitting cigarettes by not having them (and similarly a technique to help distance myself from web sites, e.g. news sites, if they become problematic).
I use a similar technique for alcohol, e.g. the easiest way for me to not have alcohol is to not buy it: if I shop once a week then I'm tempted (to buy it) no more than once a week, for maybe a minute in the day-time (when I'm in the grocery store, which sells it); and not on other days (when I don't even have it so I'm not even tempted by it) and times.
Incidentally a few days ago I found this web site https://everydaycheck.com (or you could do the same with paper, probably) which might help to create good habits. It may be better to do things as a team (e.g. meditate with a group of friends), so that social pressure (which is powerful) will encourage you to partiipate regularly; but even just having a written record helps you supervise yourself; and it records your successes not just your failures, which I find encouraging.


text:
Which branches of Buddhism acknowledge the Parable Sutra?
This Sutra, known in Chinese as 佛说譬喻经, has been translated into English by Charles Patton.
The Sutra makes a part of Taisho Tripitaka (Takakusu Junjiro's edition).
The text is known worldwide, also as a part of parables from other than Buddhist tradition.
My question is, do Theravada and Mahayana acknowledge this Sutra as words of Buddha as well?

When a Sutra began with "佛说" (佛说譬喻经), it usually means remembering what Buddha said and retold by a third party. This a general understanding, but doesn't undermine the value of teaching contained in that Sutra.
This 《佛说譬喻经》 only one page, translated by Yijing (635–713 CE), is collected in the Jātaka Section. Some scholars and Buddhists doubt the authenticity of the Jātaka "tales" - also in the Theravadin Canon. The Chinese Canon captioned this Sutra 佛说 as the beginning, just reflected the meticulousness of the ancient Chinese Buddhist Masters, to differentiate if that 100% confirmed directly from the official Tripitaka collecting, or the source was with certain uncertainty. Captioned with "佛/说" (Buddha/Said), means it told by someone that the Buddha said this. However, judging the Sutra context and other evidences, they aligned with the Buddhist teaching thus accepted in the Canon.
For Theravada, they have only one section out of the Twelves Sections of the Buddha Sutras. They may unlikely can have this in their canon. The Three Turning of Twelves Dharma Wheels was recounted in event of 500 Arhats collecting the Tripitaka after Buddha in Nirvana, recorded in at least all the survived Vinayas in the Chinese Canon, more detail in this post. The Mahisasakas Pratimoksa, one of the Early Eighteen Buddhist Schools, appeared in Ceylon supposedly split from Sthavira, but kept in the Chinese Canon. Surprised this Vinaya completely missing in the Pali Canon; their Vinaya Pitaka is with unknown origin.
Due to their lack of writing material to record large quantity of Sutras, only mean was relied on oral memorizing; Pali wasn't formally invented and synthesized, Theravada Suttas when finally they had the mean to write them down, was first written in Sinhalese letters imitating the "Pali" (Buddha never spoke Pali; Pali wasn't any ethnic language spoken by any race, the language existed and spoken by the ancient was called Paiśācī, and Prakrit, etc., not Pali; neither Pali appeared in the Ashoka Edicts, nor found to be used in any survived literature works apart from the Pali Canon) until Buddhaghosa translated all their Sinhalese records to Pali -- they likely incapable of holding this Sutra in their collection. Let alone if from the island they had means to access to all Sutras that circulating in the Indian Penisula, also wars, at that time. The only uncertain event recorded the Buddhist teaching arriving the island Ceylon was the story of Mahinda, even their own Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa had conflicting accounts on this story. If this story to a certain degree credible, how many Sutras could be bought by just one time of missionary effort?
Therefore it's not surprised this Sutra if not existed in the Theravada Canon, and not surprised many many Sutras also missing in the Theravada Canon. Just one Chinese Agama Section has the complete and extra Sutras that covered the totality of Sutta Pitaka of Pali Canon capable of keeping.

Thanks for the bigger sutra and the interesting answer; the part about Paiśācī does explain a lot about some peculiarities of some Theravada pracitioners. The Sutra I referred to is not however 《舊雜譬喻經》 (T04 / 0206) but 《佛说譬喻经》 (T04/0217) cf http://www.fodian.net/zjj/view.aspx?file=T/02-benyuan/T04-j/T04n0217.TXT and http://www.fodian.net/zjj/view.aspx?file=T/02-benyuan/T04-j/T04n0206.TXT. So far, the only mention of 舊雜譬經 in any Western language by 2004 is its French version http://www.cbeta.org/data/budadata/TranslationBibliography.htm

Bhikkhu Bodhi on Pali: "Scholars regard this language as a hybrid showing features of several Prakrit dialects used around the third century BCE, subjected to a partial process of Sanskritization. While the language is not identical to what Buddha himself would have spoken, it belongs to the same broad language family as those he might have used and originates from the same conceptual matrix. This language thus reflects the thought-world that the Buddha inherited from the wider Indian culture into which he was born, so that its words capture the subtle nuances of that thought-world."

@Manjusri Thanks, I edited my answer. Impressed you perceive the "peculiarities" :). It's not easy, when there is a purposeful intention to create the maze to lead people following certain thinking route to believe certain false-history. Your last link is useful, since I'm also dabbing with translating some texts for fun as pastime.

@ruben2020 Thanks for reading :). Your quote from the same Wikipedia I read to come to my understanding of what is "Pali". Don't you get that too by reading the whole page? Prakrit, Sanskrit, Gāndhārī (Chinese Canon many verified with archaeological discoveries)... are languages of ancient India - what is Pali? The Pali scholars can they directly answer this question, show some archaeological fragments with so-called "Pali" written on it? B. Bodhi is very clever with words - skillfully inducing the reader to fantasize this: "The Buddha spoke if not Pali but must be Pali-similar language!"

@Mishu I think the Mahayana Agamas were originally written in Classical Sanskrit? This too is not a spoken natural language of ancient India. It was a language artificially standardized by the grammarian Panini around 500BCE. The Vedas are in Vedic Sanskrit. The people spoke various dialects of Prakrit. Pali is also an artificially standardized language, just like Classical Sanskrit. It's a combination of various Prakrit dialects and Classical Sanskrit according to Bhikkhu Bodhi.

@ruben2020 I'm not expert in this Buddhist language things, but I can surely tell you, the Agamas not translated from what you understood as "originally written in Classical Sanskrit", no. It was from Prakrit, if I remember it correctly; some from Gāndhārī, or Kharoṣṭhi, etc. There were many different language-scripts the Chinese Canon translated from, for the Chinese they just simply called them one family 梵語 (means Sanskrit (梵文), or language of the Brahmin - for India to their concept was country of the Brahmins). You may read those scholastic works on archaeology discover of Gāndhārī etc.

According to the Theravada, the authentic sermons of the Buddha are known as suttas, not sutras.  However, in the Mahayana branch, there is a body of sutras known as the Agamas.  These are Chinese translations of Sanskrit translations (now lost) of the Buddha's suttas.  I do not know if the Parable Sutra is from the Agamas (which are historically-based) or Mahayana (not historically-based) sutras.  I looked it over briefly now, and I did not notice anything that marked it as being from the Mahayana Sutras, so it may have a Theravadin equivalent.
Anything in the Taisho Tripitika is believed by the Mahayana to be the words of the Buddha.

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


text:
Did the Buddha ever teach logic?
Was western logic ever taught by the Buddha? How about Indian logic? How can  logic be useful in the Eightfold Path? How could logic be a hindrance? How could logic be a blessing?

What do you mean by western logic and indian logic?  and fyu, there is no blessing in buddhism

Woa there buddy, you ever here of the MANGALA SUTTA? Seems your out of your mind, no blessing in Buddhism, indeed!!!

sorry, I meant FYI, not fyu, indeed I know what it is. and still, there are no blessing in buddhism

There are many blessings in Buddhism, some are actually what the Buddha taught, some might be the kind of blessing you must be thinking of, like when a monk gives blessings out like money or on behalf of spirits or some such thing. You never heard of the "Mangala" Sutta? It's a great sutta , it tells us what are blessings from the Buddha's mouth, over 30 practical blessings but they may not be the kind of blessing you had might be thinking of.

In one sense the Buddha advised against using deductive reasoning to gain certainty about what brings an end to suffering. From the kalama sutta :

"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Note that logical deduction requires axioms to deduce conclusions from. Logical reasoning doesn't tell us if the axioms are true and therefore it doesn't tell us if the conclusions are true.


text:
Is there any AI that teach the Dhamma?

Are there any Artificial Intelligence applications that can teach the Dhamma that are already out there or are still being developed?
What can these AI apps do with Buddhism?
How can they facilitate practice?
What will AI in development possibly be able to do in relation to Buddhism in the future?

Here are some examples of what I mean.
Could AI:

...have a conversation with the Tipitaka as it's database?

...understand all the arguments and controversies and debate certain topics?

...help guide someone in their meditation.

Metta.

This Wired article shows how AI has been used to enhance Google Search.
You can search the Tripitaka and other Buddhist articles, on Google Search by adding site:accesstoinsight.org or site:suttacentral.net/en.
For e.g. I Google-searched for:
did the buddha feel pain? site:accesstoinsight.org

And I got the first result below:

Nibbana as Living Experience / The Buddha and The Arahant: Two ...
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html
  There is plenty of evidence to show that an arahant does feel
  sensations caused by physical changes. For instance, the Buddha felt
  acute pain when he was wounded by a stone splinter[19] and when he
  suffered from indigestion.[20] But he was able to withstand the
  painful sensations with mindfulness and clear ...

There are more tips on this page on refining Google web searches.

I am not aware of an AI application designed specifically to teach Dharma, but I think it is an excellent idea. As a practitioner of both Buddhism and data science, I would love to work on something that has the capacity to provide dharmic sentiments at exactly the moment they are necessary, tailored to meet each person's needs. Marketing is moving in that direction, so it is possible that similar systems could be trained on Dharma activity, rather than purchase activity. More to come in this area over the decades!

You should probably look into AI applications that teach any content in general to get your answer.
Some general applications in teaching are:

letting the AI reorganize contents to optimize learning based on usage data (like duolingo does)
training a chatbot that you can ask questions to (it will have somewhat limited capabilities, but could be useful nevertheless)

Now... if you want to dive specifically into the Dhamma, the uniqueness of a potential AI application would be to help you apply the Dhamma to your life, or also monitor your mental state during meditation practice.
But there’s a caveat here: this involvement of technology could easily become an obstacle or distraction rather than a tool.
I would suggest you forget about this and keep it simple: read about the dhamma and practice the dhamma every day.

Anything has the potential to be an obstacle but your saying especially AI?


text:
What makes a great a spiritual leader? Is it nature or nurture or something else?
Two premises presumed for my question:

The 14th Dalai Lama is an especially sincere spirit
Reincarnation, beyond the scientific eg recycling of atoms / culture / dna, is an incorrect idea.

Is the 14h Dalai Lama's charisma created by being raised as a spiritual leader? Are all Tibetans especially sweet souls? Is it both or neither, but rather great luck?
I am trying to tease out nature & nurture, and squeeze out the supernatural!

I think there's no good way to answer this question. Usually a good answer is based on references, or on personal experience. I don't see how "personal experience" might be relevant. Perhaps it would be better to ask for references, which describe how he was selected and educated?

You become one :)

Funny enough, you mention HHDL as a spirit and go on to say reincarnation is otherwise a false idea. So what is your spirit made of?

In his line of work the Dalai Lama needs wisdom and knowledge. Culture and upbringing will have an impact but greatness as a 'spiritual' leader requires greatness as a practitioner and a high degree of realisation. Otherwise they will soon be exposed as frauds and will lack the skills to succeed. Having said this, there is no doubt that the routine of study and practice to which the Dalai Lama was subject in his youth is directly relevant to his skills and abilities as an adult, as would have been the character of a society in which at the time 40% of young men become monks.

Notwithstanding your (questionable) second premise ... :)
I'll say that not all Tibetans are such sweet souls and you'd be hard pressed to find many that are anywhere near as incomparable as HHDL... but the answer is simple: practice of the Dharma.
His Holiness is a Bodhisattva who has been wholeheartedly practicing according to the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
 for many, many, many years if not many, many, many lifetimes. What you are seeing is the result of such continued and amazing practice. Consider his Holiness's favorite quote which he repeats constantly during his teachings:

With a wish to free all beings I shall always go for refuge to the
  Buddha, Dharma and Sangha until I reach full enlightenment.
Enthused by wisdom and compassion, today in the Buddha’s presence I
  generate the Mind for Full Awakening for the benefit of all sentient
  beings.
As long as space endures, as long as sentient being remain, until then, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world.

If one faithfully practices and generates this Mind of Enlightenment the results will follow. You are just observing the results.

The Buddha's world-view was greatly influenced by Hinduism, the dominant world view in his region during his lifetime. The original Buddhist concepts of karma and rebirth are basically a facsimile of these concepts in Hinduism and were taken quite literally during and after the Buddha's lifetime.
The Mahayana view on rebirth is not necessarily taken so literally. In several Mahayana schools, it is suggested that humans go through incarnations in these realms of hell every waking day when feeling angry, hungry, etc. In Nichiren, this is called "Three thousand realms in a single moment of life".
Also, in Mahayana Buddhism, "death" does not necessarily refer to physical death. Reaching even a single moment of enlightenment is referred to as "the Great Death".
The Tibetan schools of Buddhism - though mostly Mahayana - are, due to their geographic location, more influenced by the originally Hinduist cosmology than other schools of Buddhism, as well as remnants of the local Animism cults (that's why Tibetan Buddhism is the only one to have oracles supposedly channeling the spirit world).
In private conversations with Tibetan monks I've noticed on several occasions that the public-held belief of reincarnation doesn't necessarily translate to personal view. An important factor on why it's maintained so adamantly in (public/popular) Tibetan Buddhism is no doubt the question of succession of the Dalai Lama by a Chinese puppet-lama.

There is a lot to like in your answer - in a lot of your answers! - and I have no doubt of your sincerity nor your truthfulness re: conversations with Tibetan monks. But as a contrary point I'll say that having conversed with lots of monks, nuns and students in HHDL's lineage - some very senior - that the doctrine of rebirth is taken quite seriously and that nearly everyone I know in that lineage does not doubt for an instant the phenomena of rebirth. In particular, HHDL has taught the doctrine of rebirth quite sincerely. I have no doubt he believes it. Not based on faith, but based on reason.

I can only convey what I've heard in several conversations but I assure you this is a true account. Incidentally, the Dalai Lama has also said: “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims”. That to me is a reason-based argument not founded in doctrine. I mean no disrespect but I consider myself foremost a scientist and then a student of Buddhism. Tashi Delek.

Yes, like I said I have no doubt your sincerity or truthfulness, just that your accounts are anecdotal and my own anecdotal accounts differ ;) Also, you are correct about HHDL's respect for science and reason. Like I said, his belief in rebirth is based in reason and not in faith. IOW, he thinks rebirth is a fact that can be known through reasoned logic alone.

I'm with Yeshe Tenley here. I find it odd to talk about the Buddha's world-view as being influenced by this and that tradition. It would have nothing to do with tradition. It is about what we know and what we don't.

@PeterJ I think of it as the doctrine being influenced by the audience. If "rebirth" is the dominant contemporary world-view then the Buddha is (imo) likely to say something on that subject; like Jesus was likely to say things about God and  the scriptures; or like someone in contemporary society (HHDL for example) might be quoted as having said things about science.

@ChrisW - I'd agree that the mode of expression will be influenced by the audience. But not the content.

@PeterJ There are many suttas whose content explicitly contradicts various contemporary views -- e.g. "annihilationism is wrong view", and "eternalism is wrong view", and "the Niganthas have wrong view" and so on.

@ChrisW - We seem to be at cross-purposes. Of course the sutras discuss contemporary views, and often to deny their correctness. If one view is correct then clearly most views will be incorrect.

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


text:
Does kama have a place in the life of a practitioner after losing kamacchanda?
Since kamacchanda is one of the five hindrances, it seems to be something to overcome.
Does that mean then that there is no more place for art and beauty in the life of a practitioner after the first jhana, according to Buddhist teaching?
Or can you have a healthy relationship with kama? Is taking pleasure in a tree or a conversation with a friend kamacchanda?

Since kamacchanda is one of the five hindrances, it seems to be
  something to overcome.

Yes, it is. Such as nivaraṇapabba (hindrances title) in mahāsatipatthānasutta.

Does that mean then that there is no more place for art and beauty in
  the life of a practitioner after the first jhana, according to
  Buddhist teaching?

Yes, it is till that practitioner still can keep his jhāna. But it is still can return when he loose his jhāna. Because jhāna-mind just arise instead of hindrance-mind, jhāna-mind does not destroyed chance to arising of future hindrance. It is a duty of vipassana. However, jhāna is required, for vipassanā of taṇhācarita-puggala.

Or can you have a healthy relationship with kama?

Yes, the practitioner can practice the right mettā, without kāmacchanda. But the practitioner must be smart to choose his friends (be able to all ariya)/partners (be able just for sotāpanna and sakadāgāmī), too.

Is taking pleasure in a tree or a conversation with a friend kamacchanda?

It is up to the practitioner's present, arising, mind factors on that time. See my answer about chanda here to understand about chanda.

The 1st jhana does not uproot or destroy sensual delight. It appears only the Non-Returner & certainly the Arahant have uprooted sensual delight. Therefore, sensual delight can still arise after the 1st jhana has been attained.
This said, it is probably unlikely a person can attain jhana who is concerned about losing art & beauty. Jhana is not like buying a better motor car or more luxurious house.

But is any appreciation of beauty sensual delight? If an Arahant goes to a place of outstanding natural beauty and sees the beautiful as beautiful, is this sensual delight? I am concerned about excessive austerity in my practise, not whether I can keep the fun stuff and still do Buddhism.


text:
Do beings have control where they get re-incarnated
I hear some people saying that after death souls often get re-born among close relatives. For example, your grand parent may be re-born as your child after death. Although I never believed in this in the past, due to some of the incidents that happened during last couple of years, I feel like there is some truth about this. Does Buddha give any explanations in this respect?

Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation but in rebirth

Adding few lines to @Heisenberg, There are no souls in buddhism. When you die, nothing will rise above from your dead body and floats around. but there is a thing called Consciousness. Yes, the incident you mentioned is possible. There is a thing, which happens on person's last breath, he/she may get last glimpse of imagination or thought process which may direct on person's reincarnation.

According to the Mata Sutta (SN 15.14-19):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at
  one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been
  your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your
  daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

In the Assu Sutta, the Buddha taught that the amount of tears that one person has shed in all his previous lifetimes added together would exceed the volume of water found in the four great oceans.
I made a calculation in this answer based on the Assu Sutta, to show that according to the Buddha, we have all been reborn no less than 20 quintillion (20 x 1018) times. However, since the Buddha says that "a beginning point is not evident", I guess that it should be far greater than 20 quintillion times, perhaps approaching infinity.
In the Mata Sutta, the Buddha reinforces this point by saying that it's hard to find somebody in existence whom you have never had anything to do with.
In other words, your finding that you are probably born among relatives from former lifetimes is true, because almost every person you meet in your life was a relative in some former lifetime. In fact, every human being currently living on Earth may have been somebody you have known in a previous lifetime.

Thanks for the answer, but for me above is not self-explanatory at all. Could you please explain it a bit?

@Pete I have updated the answer.

It is possible, however it is off chance.
How about that off chance possible?
The reincarnator must does:

Much enough merit.
Because the merits cause the rebirth in a new good life, such as a human life, angel.
See: K.N.Dhammapada's Commentary Patipūjikā, and chaddanta-jātaka's commentary.
Very strong efforts of mind's desire, intention, management,
inspiration, decision, etc, to act about "specified new life" in every
life's moments, until he die.
Because the strong efforts to keep regularly actions that cause of target new life, will send you to be the specified new life, as a director. It is like a transgender man who use every second of life to act like a woman.
See: A.N. Sattakanipāta Saṃyogasuttaṃ.
Die just in the same millisecond of new life fertilization.
Because the dead-mind is immediate contiguity cause of rebirth-mind. And mind arising and vanishing is very fast (over trillions times per snap finger).
See: Sanṅgaha 4th chapter.

However it is still very hard, so buddha taught in Pansu Suttas:

"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the
  Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to
  nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a
  fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with
  the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in the
  animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

You can see that it is very very hard to success. And all the way, you still will be old and dead after that. So, theravāda buddhism never support whole rebirth and reincarnation. We have jātaka, rebirth cannon, just for an inspiration and faith in buddha's ability and experience.
Nowhere you can avoid the suffering, if you still rebirth
This image captured from TEACHING & TRAINING book of Pa-auk monastery:


text:
Why are desires in The Five Hindrances only about "sensual" desires?
The five hindrances consist of sensual desires. ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and doubt. I have often wondered why the first hindrance are limited to sensual desires as this is leaving out the desires/attachment that one can have to other things, like desires for power/control, to be loved or approved of, to achieve, to feel secure. I have always wondered why these are not included as obstacles to spiritual freedom in the dhamma, as they are often much more in the foreground than sensual desires when trying to obtain concentration. Thoughts like "I should have done otherwise", "why did she say so to me", "I need to find a solution", "I must improve" are coming from such needs or attachments. I cannot understand why the first hindrance only talks about sensual desires when there are all these other desires?

There are 6 senses, technically, in buddhism. craving & ill-will can perfectly have mental states for objects, such as emotions or mind-states (love, peace, calm, etc etc). I would challenge your question in what it presupposes. 5H are definitely are about senses, but not in the western sense, but including the mind itself - all 6 senses.

It seems that the five hindrances are obstacles to the five factors to be developed in the first jhana. There are other hindrances but these five are important in the context of progress in meditation.
According to Access To Insight:

Buddhaghosa states that the abandonment of the five hindrances alone
  is mentioned in connection with jhana because the hindrances are the
  direct enemies of the five jhana factors, which the latter must
  eliminate and abolish. To support his point the commentator cites a
  passage demonstrating a one-to-one correspondence between the jhana
  factors and the hindrances: one-pointedness is opposed to sensual
  desire, rapture to ill will, applied thought to sloth and torpor,
  happiness to restlessness and worry, and sustained thought to doubt
  (Vism. 141; PP.147). Thus each jhana factor is seen as having the
  specific task of eliminating a particular obstruction to the jhana and
  to correlate these obstructions with the five jhana factors they are
  collected into a scheme of five hindrances.

The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch1

Why are "the desires/attachment that one can have to other things" (i.e. the topic of the OP) not also "opposed to one-pointedness" (the topic of your answer)?

The aim was to show that the point of the five hindrances is that they are hindrances to factors required in the jhanas (and therefore do not need to cover all forms of desire). Sensual desire is considered an obstacle to meditation. In the quote, it lists the five hindrances and factors as pairs. One-pointedness is not singled out.

Meditation teacher Gil Fronsdal comments here on why this hindrance is focused on sensual desires rather than other desires:

Perhaps sensual desire is singled out as particularly hazardous to
  meditators because reaching for pleasure and avoiding pain are more
  basic than other desires. Even when the mind is still enough not to be
  caught up in other desires, the enticement of pleasure can still be
  operating. When the grip of sensual desire is strong, it often pulls
  us into the world of fantasy and imagination. Sometimes it is the
  pleasure of fantasizing itself that holds us more than the object of
  our wants.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with sensual pleasure, the
  desire for it is called a hindrance when it interferes with our
  ability to stay present. During meditation, even the most innocent
  desire can distract awareness from the razor’s edge of the present
  moment. If we want to stay on that edge, we need to let go of anything
  that causes us to slip off it.

Obsession with more complex desires would fall under the hindrance of restlessness and worry:

Frustrated desire and pent-up aversion are common causes of agitation.
  Fear and resentment are others. Dissatisfaction is a cause that can
  keep the mind restless with searching. Trying too hard in meditation
  can also stir up the mind. When any of these are primary, it can be
  more useful to be mindful of them than the restlessness. Ignoring the
  causes can keep us skimming the surface; being mindful of the
  underlying causes can help with the settling.

The five hindrances is a teaching for meditators &, originally, obviously primarily for monks. Therefore, the worldly desires mentioned are generally not relevant to the life of a monk. The point of sensual desire is, obviously, it is a biologically based desire (in relation to sex & food) that is difficult to extinguish.
As for some of the other examples in the question, such as  "I should have done otherwise", "why did she say so to me", "I need to find a solution", "I must improve", these appear to be examples of the hindrance of restlessness & remorse. "Why did she say so to me" could also be ill-will.

Perhaps desires for "things" are ultimately sensual ... including power, social status, physical security ... because how could you desire these things if you were unable to sense them?
But some desires might not be considered unwholesome, a hindrance: wanting to improve, wanting to find liberation, etc.,  may be considered skillful.
Thoughts like these may be quieted eventually but I'm not sure they're a hindrance (or not necessarily and unambiguously a hindrance) as such.
Some desires (i.e. chanda as opposed to tanha) are seen as wholesome and even necessary.

Chanda = will; aspiration, being interest.
Kāmacchanda = akusala-chanda = will+sensual desires, aspiration of sensual desires. interest and attaching, needing.
Kusala-chanda = will+wholesome mind and mind factors,  aspiration of wholesome mind and mind factors. Being interest but not attaching, ready for giving.
You can found them in  AN 10.51, PTS: A v 92, Sacitta Sutta:

{51.1}  Sace bhikkhave bhikkhu paccavekkhamāno evaṃ jānāti
  abhijjhālu bahulaṃ (=kāmacchandho)    viharāmi   byāpannacitto  bahulaṃ  viharāmi  thīnamiddhapariyuṭṭhito  bahulaṃ viharāmi  uddhato
  bahulaṃ  viharāmi  vicikiccho  bahulaṃ  viharāmi  kodhano bahulaṃ
  viharāmi   saṅkiliṭṭhacitto   bahulaṃ   viharāmi  sāraddhakāyo
  bahulaṃ  viharāmi kusīto  bahulaṃ  viharāmi  asamāhito  bahulaṃ
  viharāmīti  tena bhikkhave bhikkhunā tesaṃyeva pāpakānaṃ akusalānaṃ
  dhammānaṃ pahānāya adhimatto chando (=kusala-chanda) ca vāyāmo ca
  ussāho  ca  ussoḷhi   ca  appaṭivānī  ca sati ca sampajaññañca
  karaṇīyaṃ
When reflecting if the bhikkhu knows, for most of the time I abide coveting (=abhijjhālu=kāmacchanda), abide with an angry mind, abide with sloth and torpor, abide restlessly worrying, abide with doubts, abide with hatred, abide with a defiled mind, abide with a violent angry body, abide lazy and distracted, he should arouse a lot of desireinterest (=kusala-chanda), effort, zeal, unhindered action and mindful awareness to dispel those demeritorious things.

Note: In this sutta, buddha used 'abhijjhālu' word instead of 'kāmacchanda' word to avoid the confusion between kusala-chanda (kāmacchanda) and akusala-chanda (chando in above sutta). It likes an avoiding confusion between made-known-viññāṇa (object) and knowing-viññāṇa (subject), when buddha used 'viññāṇa' word as object (focused point) of the practitioner, 'citta' word as the practitioner (focusing doer/undoer;subject) in anattalakkhaṇasutta.
In path of purification:
chanda:

(xxviii) Zeal (desire) is a term for desire interest to act. So that zeal has the characteristic of desire interest to act. Its function is searching for
  an object. It is manifested as want for an object. That same [object]
  is its proximate cause. It should be regarded as the extending of the
  mental hand in the apprehending of an object.

kāmacchanda:

Of these, greed has the characteristic of grasping an object, like birdlime (lit. “monkey lime”). Its function is sticking, like
  meat put in a hot pan. It is manifested as not giving up, like the dye
  of lamp-black. Its proximate cause is seeing enjoyment in things that
  lead to bondage. Swelling with the current of craving, it should be
  regarded as taking [beings] with it to states of loss, as a
  swift-flowing river does to the great ocean.

kusala-chanda:

(xiii)–(xv) By its means they are not greedy (na lubbhanti), or it itself is not greedy, or it is just the mere not being greedy
  (alubbhana), thus it is non-greed (alobha). The same method applies to
  non-hate (adosa) and non-delusion (amoha) [na dussanti, adussana =
  adosa, and na muyhanti, amuyhana = amoha (see §§171,161)]. Of these,
  non-greed has the characteristic of the mind’s lack of desire for an
  object, or it has the characteristic of non-adherence, like a water
  drop on a lotus leaf. Its function is not to lay hold, like a
  liberated bhikkhu. It is manifested as a state of not treating as a
  shelter, like that of a man who has fallen into filth.

You can also see the abhidhammatthasaṅgaha for more information and relativity of chanda compare with lobha (kāmacchanda).


text:
Where can I get authentic Yab-Yum statues/figurines?
Ebay and Amazon have either very large and (prohibitively) expensive ones or those mass-produced in China. Where can I get a bronze or brass figurine that is small in size. Thank you.

If this question should or shouldn't be reopened, please post your opinion or vote on it here on meta: Are "Where can I buy X" questions allowed?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because "shopping" questions are discouraged, and usually considered off-topic, on all StackExchange sites.

@ChrisW Sorry I don't have enough reputation to post on the meta site. Where can I go to get some guidance on this requirement?

There's some further guidance at Why are “shopping list” questions bad?.

I just upvoted this question in order to give you a reputation of "5", which should mean that you can now post on meta if you want to.

Why do you lust after worldly goods so?

@majenko - It's not for me. A senior practitioner wants one to replace the one they lost. And asked if I can help find one. I feel it is my duty to try sincerely since I owe them for their time and wisdom and guidance.

@ChrisW  Do I have to register to post on meta? This is the comment I want to post on meta "But what is the article being sought is one that helps in one's sadhana/practice? Such questions may be allowed?"

Apparently yes, you would have to register, according to this post: Why can't unregistered users post on meta? I'm sorry you want one and haven't been able to find one (yet) but I wouldn't have an answer to that comment/question if you did post it on meta. It may be that no-one would have an answer (to this closed question) even if you were allowed to ask it here. Also fwiw I don't know what "authentic" means, i.e. how do you judge whether something is authentic or not.


text:
Five precepts and lower realms
My understanding is that, although we are practicing five precepts in this life, there is no guarantee we will not be reborn in lower realm, it is possible to take rebirth in lower realm in the next life or many lives after. But according some sources, when one practices five precepts that person will not be reborn in one of the lower realms (in the next life). Which one is the correct one?

Please quote the "sources" you are referring to. This will improve the quality of the question. Thanks

I do not quote it because it's verbal not written. Thanks.

Reaching at least the Sotapanna state is the only 100% guarantee of not being born in lower realms ever again.
But if you reach at least the second insight knowledge -Paccaya Pariggaha Nana of the 16 stages of insight towards becoming a Sotappanna, it is said that you will not be born in a lower realm in the immediate next life.
If you are a devout Buddhist who keeps to the five precepts, it is highly unlikely to be born in a lower realm in the next life. But there's no guarantee. It mostly depends on the quality of your precepts. As in how well you keep to them.

What fails a devout Buddhist who keeps five precepts to be born in a happy destination then?

If something unwholesome comes to the mind at the time of your death. Like in the case of queen Mallika or like in the case of the monk who kept continuously worrying about plucking a leaf of a tree accidentally.

(1) What if something unwholesome don't come up to the mind of that devout Buddhist who practices five precepts at the time of his death, would you say he will be guaranteed not to take rebirth in one of the lower realm?
(2) In the case of queen Malika and/or a monk, why the virtue of precepts that they cultivated thoroughout their life can't hinder the trivial unwholesomeness that occurs at the time of their death?

If a wholesome Karma comes to the mind, you'll be born in a happy destination and if an unwholesome Karma comes, you will be born in a lower realm.
There is a precedence to what Karma comes forward to give the next birth. First comes weighty Karmas. That means the Jhanas, path attainments or 5 heinous karmas. If there's nothing as such then comes the Karma you have done very recently. If not, a Karma you have practiced throughout your life. Otherwise a random Karma.
Read more  here: http://www.lawsofthenature.com/FourKindsOfKama.aspx

@B1100 The story (or a story) of the broken leaf is detailed here. I think the monk who broke a leaf and became a snake had been worrying about it habitually (or obsessively) during his life, not only at the moment of death; and he'd failed to confess it as he should i.e. he disobeyed Vinaya.

@ChrisW But the point is that he kept more than five precepts and he was more than just a devout Buddhist. Breaking a leaf is just a minor offence that is not even bad Karma. It's his worry that got him in trouble. So as you can see even a monk can be born in a lower realm. How uncertain it could be for the average layman who just keeps to the five precepts.

@SankhaKulathantille Yes. I was trying to answer the virtue of precepts that they cultivated thoroughout their life can't hinder the trivial unwholesomeness that occurs at the time of their death? -- I think that according to this story the worry wasn't "trivial" and wasn't only "at the time of death" (but it was instead a life-long worry, together with not confessing and perhaps even concealing the offense).

Yes, so it would have presented itself as Acinna Kamma at the time of his death. Concealing(without lying) does not affect the five precepts.

@SankhaKulathantille Talking about precednece of karma, what if nothing unwholesome comes to the mind, would you say he will be guaranteed to take rebirth in a happy destination?

@B1100 Nothing unwholesome means it will be a wholesome Karma that takes precedence. A wholesome Karma cannot send you to hell by definition.

@SankhaKulathantille You said: "If not, a Karma you have practiced throughout your life". I think the karma we have practiced throughout our life is variously vast, which karma we have practiced throughout our life?

@B1100 I meant habitual Karma like drinking or offering flowers to the Buddha every day or fisherman killing fish. Something you did often.

There are many levels of achievement in Theravada Buddhism (in ascending order):

Faith follower
Dhamma follower
Stream enterer
Once returner
Non-returner
Arahant

The faith follower basically has faith and conviction in the Buddha as the teacher of the path to the end of suffering, the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) and the Sangha (the 8 types of individuals on the path). The faith follower would normally take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as well as vow to undertake the five precepts. That's merely the first step.
The guarantee of not being reborn in lower realms (hell, animal, asuras and hungry shades) is the result of achieving stream entry (or higher).
For all others, there is no guarantee.
According to the Vera Sutta:

"When, for a disciple of the noble ones, these five forms of fear &
  animosity are stilled; when he is endowed with these four factors of
  stream-entry; and when, through discernment, he has rightly seen &
  rightly ferreted out this noble method, then if he wants he may state
  about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of
  the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the
  bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again
  destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'"

The five forms of fear and animosity are stilled by the relentless practice of the five precepts.
The four factors of stream-entry are verified confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, and having "virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration."
The noble method is the understanding of how suffering is ended by the realization of dependent origination.
The one who has fulfilled the above, becomes a stream winner, who is guaranteed freedom from rebirth in lower realms.

I think that depends mainly on the tradition and/or a practice chosen by a person to follow.
In Theravada, a person has to follow all the precepts (for a lay person or a bhikshu(ni) accordingly), a qualified answer to your question is to be provided by a scholar. One of the core Theravada obligations, as I understand it, is to achieve Nirvana by obligatory following of all the percepts.
In Zen, a person also can be either a qualified master or a mundane follower, yet even an enlightment can be achieved within a single lifetime by any sentien being, even by ; a rebirth to lower realms can be a deliberate choice because of compassion. In addition to usual percepts, specific Zen vows are to be taken.
In Mahayana, a person can be a layman, a scholar or ordained monk/nun/lama within an institution, and many depends on previous karma plus a state of mind at the moment when a person experiences death. A person can be either a layman and a scholar or a scholar and an ordained practiotioner; the number of percepts and/or vows to be taken depends on a school and its lineage.
In Vajrayana, it is the tantric vows (which in some cases may contradict or exclude those taken by laymen) and their purity that define the outcome, together with a state of mind at the moment of death. A person can be a layman at a superficial appearance, and an ordained practitioner and a well-learned scholar by one's nature. A number and essence of the vows depends on a deity and a transmission lineage together with ethics.

Five precepts was declared by Buddha to maintain sustainability of society and harmony with nature is the best explanation and not for gain qualifications to get rebirth in upper realms. E.g killing each other will leads to spread violence and extinction and kill other animals may leads to unbalance and harm the delicate balance of nature. stealing discourage people form farming and manufacturing, sensual misconduct leads damage the health, taking intoxicant,alcohol or drugs damage health and crate violence, lie and break trust will spread violence and damage business and financial development. So five precepts are vital,wholesome and positive moral value essential to maintain sustainability and development in both personal and society-wise. Also adhere to these will give us result here and now no need to wait until next life. See the world with intensive violence,wars,STD(specially AIDS),non chronicle deceases like diabetes,cholesterol,stress,anxiety,corruption,crimes,robberies etc.. and when five precepts are followed  individually and society-wise is the proven cure for above issues in world.

So five precepts are vital,wholesome and positive moral value essential ... now no need to wait until next life That may be true but it doesn't seem to answer the OP's question, which asks: "according to Theravada, if one practices five precepts in this life, is one guaranteed not be reborn in one of the lower realms (in the next life)?"

This is the correct and practical explanation to the question. That's the realistic purpose of follow five precepts. Results are immediate,here and now. But if some one believe rebirth and follow five precepts for gain spiritual gain does't matter as above mention upgrade in society will occur and it is guaranteed. But reborn in upper realms is your personal experience after your death which no body can guarantee. Rebirth is controversial concept. what I mention is Buddha declared five precept upon the purpose of to maintain sustainability in the world. That's the answer.

But believers of rebirth and non believers are free to follow and protect five precepts. believers expect spiritual gain and non believers experience the moral values and upgrade and development of society and world.

The lower realms include "hell", which is unhappiness & suffering. About "hell", the suttas say:

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable.
SN 35.135

For example, imagine a person who clings to the precept of non-killing; believing in vegetarianism. If this person does not have sufficient wisdom, when they experience animals killed for food or people eating meat, they suffer. This persons gets angry or otherwise unhappy. This unhappiness, anger, suffering & experiencing what is undesirable is what the Pali suttas call "hell".

It's hard for me to see this as more or less of an answer to the OP's question than this answer is.


text:
What is the meaning of the word Dhamma?
Can anyone please explain the meaning of the word Dhamma in the sentence "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta"?
Since Anatta is Truth; Am I an instance of Dhamma?

Possible duplicate question: "What is the meaning of “dhammā” in the context of the four satipaṭṭhāna?".

"Dhamma" is a complicated word, or a simple word that's used in many different contexts.
Here is a definition.
I'd summarise it to myself as "described thing" or "anything you can identify".
In the phrase "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta", I think it's used in contrast to the other two of the three characteristics, i.e.:

The three marks are:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

Explanation:

saṅkhārās are aniccā and dukkhā
saṅkhārās are anattā too
nibanna isn't a saṅkhārā but it too is anattā

So instead of saying "saṅkhārās and nibanna are anattā", summarize that as "all dhammās are anattā" (where "all dhammās" is meant to include all saṅkhārās and nibanna too).

(In reply to the two comments below)
So:

Dhamma -- a teaching or a reality
Sankhara -- a compound thing or a conditioned thing
Anicca -- impermanent
Dukkha -- unsatisfactory
Anatta -- non-self or not-soul or without I/me/my
Sabbe -- all

And:

All sankharas are anicca, dukkha, and anatta
Nibanna is not annica and not dukkha but is anatta
Nibanna is not a sankhara but is a dhamma
So all dhammas (including sankharas and nibanna) are anatta

Here (for example) is a reference to Nibanna being a Dhamma:

The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.

this is complicated. good, but complicated

Dhamma means Anatta. Dhamma doesn't mean Nirvana. Nirvana means unoriginated, unborn , unbecome , uncreate .... But not Dhamma. Can you give me link to definition of Dhamma as Nirvana ?

@DheerajVerma I added to the answer. I hope it's clearer now?

@ChrisW Can you please provide me the link to Sutta where Buddha says Nibanna is the Supreme Dhamma ? Thanks.

@DheerajVerma Thanks for asking. Please post this as a new question if you want a longer answer (or other people's answers), but in brief the best and perhaps only answer I found to this question is Dhammapada Verses 183, 184 and 185 where "Nibanna supreme" is said in the context of "the teaching of all Buddhas".

If simplified Dhamma as teaching of Buddha. It's also interpreted as behavior or process of nature. E.g when you consider three characteristics(anatta,dukkha,anicca); those are exists in nature and can be observed with our wisdom. Simply Dhamma is how nature is operated or functioned with its fundamental laws and constants.

I guess Dhamma is the teaching of any God head. There can be Christian Dhamma, Muslim Dhamma , Hindu Dhamma etc.

It's little misleading. Dhamma can't be labeled. As a Buddhists we accept with wisdom Dhamma as teaching of Buddha.E.g When you consider three characteristics with your wisdom they don't need labels and they are fundamental and basics of nature. Once Buddha declared 2500 years ago it with his wisdom then we can accept with our wisdom in our capacity. If any religious leader declare some thing and not cope with human wisdom and dogma can't be consider as Dhamma. If you are not Buddhist it's better to consider Dhamma  "how nature is operated or functioned with its fundamental laws and constants.

@DheerajVerma what you meant by God head?

Basically "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta" means everything is Transitory. Everything will be destroyed eventually. Nothing is permanent.
sentence breakdown.
Sabbe - every
Dhamma (this is complex and complicated word which has deeper meaning in buddhism) - In this instance Dhamma means things.
Anatta - Without form, without ownership, no bond, without soul, There is no such thing as me, my or mine.
By this sentence, it explains that bonds we create is the base for the sufferings. Nothing is permanent. So our bonds to certain things,people will become the causality for the suffering we hold.

I think it's aniccā that means impermanent; anattā means something like "without self, without soul, without I/me/my" ... note that nibanna too is anatta but (according to the Pali canon) it is not transitory, instead it is timeless.

@ChrisW misread that word, you're right, Updated my answer


text:
Who actually is the 'Devil King Of the Sixth Heaven'?
I want to ask who is the devil king of the sixth heaven actually is and i also want to ask what happen to the people who suicide in buddhism ?

Mara is the leader of a faction in the 6th heaven:

(11) Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)
These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them. Mara, the personification of delusion and desire, lives here.

He's neither the king there nor the king of all demons. Demons mostly belong to the first heaven. That faction is just opposed to anyone trying to attain enlightenment or lead others to enlightenment.
People who commit suicide usually have an unskillful state of mind in their final moments. So it is most likely that they end up in a lower realm. But there can be rare exceptions.

I marked you post down because it has no references to support the answer, therefore is merely opinion based. Regards

Added a reference. But why would you ask for a reference when you do not believe in other realms or life after death in any case? :)

A more detailed reference here -- Sixth and highest heaven of the Desire Realm -- and more at True Buddha Dharma-character Treasury - Mahesvara Buddha about Mara as opposition -- I can't say how reliable these references are, and, they're not Theravada.

Suicide reference?

Most of devaputtamāra appear in tipitaka. Even commentary explained just a little bit as "'pajāpatiṃ' (in mūlapariyāyasutta) means māro. One explained 'pajāpatiṃ means mahārājā, the leader of each deva group, but the great commentary already denied that explanation because mahārājā already included in 'deve' word, above. So māro means pajāpati in this sutta by leading of lives, pajā. Where is him? He is in the sixth heaven realm. Actually, there is vasavattirājā on that realm. One explained 'māro is the leader of his people in a part of that realm like a crown prince in colony'".

http://84000.org/tipitaka/read/attha_page.php?book=7&page=36&pages=1&edition=roman


text:
Buddhism and theory of relativity

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” – Albert Einstein.

As per above quotes it give us some clues that Albert Einstein the greatest scientist of the century immensely influenced by Buddhism. When we study the theory of relativity seems to get root from Buddhism with the descriptions of time flow in six realms. Do anyone have descriptions "Theory of relativity" and are there any relationship with Buddhist teaching?

This appears to be a false quote (i.e. Einstein never said that), according to what's written here and here and here.

This might be going in the direction of quantum woo. Buddhism never needed science, and its purpose is not to explain everything.

"Whether the universe is eternal or not, etc., (those 10 opinions) I have not explained. Why, Māluṅkyaputta, have I not explained them? Because it is not useful, it is not fundamentally connected with the spiritual holy life, is not conducive to aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization, Nirvāṇa. That is why I have not told you about them." What the Buddha Taught

Even if this were a real quote, it is likely just due to the perception that Buddhism is the most useful of the world religions (i.e. people can get real-world benefits from meditation, in a way they can't from Western prayer). It is also likely due to the perception that Buddhism doesn't subscribe to the supernatural (which it clearly does to a not-insignificant extent, but a non-religious person can disregard all of this for its practical purposes).

Do anyone have descriptions "Theory of relativity" and are there any relationship with Buddhist teaching?
Asking "what is the theory of relativity?" isn't on-topic on this site (which is about Buddhism and not, say, Physics). Someone could try to draw analogies between Relativity and Buddhism; and they may have some characteristics in common (e.g. they're both dharmas, both anatta); but IMO there's little or no relationship (except that someone can try to learn both and then try to relate them).
One possible relationship is the idea that a frame of reference isn't privileged -- i.e. things exist in relationship to other things (which reminds me of "Indra's net", and of "this/that conditionality").
When we study the theory of relativity seems to get root from Buddhism with the descriptions of time flow in six realms.
There is a phenomenon called relativistic time dilation: if I were one of those twins, it would seem to me that I age at whatever the normal rate is but my twin ages at a different rate.
I'm not sure that (i.e. I doubt that) is the same kind of "different time flows" that you might read about in Buddhism.
There's an idiom in English "time flies when you're having fun" (see e.g. this article). Possibly the "time flow" described in Buddhism is more like that, i.e. it's a description of subjective time flow.

This is what I am thinking. Time is phenomena perceive by mind. Time run fast when you are happy and slow when suffer.

Perhaps it's also pedagogical i.e. skillful teaching: "Heaven is extra-good because it's super-long; and hell is extra-bad because it's infernally long; in contrast, human life is relatively short so don't waste this brief opportunity."

Because Buddhism does not have any notion of an objective, absolute construct (such as the Absolute Space, Time, Property or Object within Newtonian mechanics), and because Buddhism doesn't jump to a complete nihilism given this absence of Self, all that is left is relativity. Dependent arising is principally that principle of relativity. Paper describing the parallels between Buddhist philosophy (Nagarjuna's) and Rovelli's relational QM.
(Einstein's two relativities got rid of Absolute Time and Absolute Space relative to Newtonian mechanics btw, but he was still very certainly convinced that beyond the 'veil' of QM, there were fully deterministic, Absolute Objects and their Properties, "God does not play dice")

Buddhism is not interested in the physics of cosmology, because the physics of cosmology is not soteriological. It doesn't contribute towards the permanent cessation of suffering.

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it. - Acintita
Sutta

However, Einstein admired Buddhism because, I speculate, among world religions, Buddhism is the most empirical. It doesn't require beliefs and faith in things that are untestable and cannot be experienced in the here and now.
How is Buddhism related to the theories of relativity? It's obvious that both of Einstein's theories of relativity proved the Buddhist notion of impermanence (anicca).
Newton's physics assumed that the flow of time and the nature of space is fixed and permanent. Newton did not question the stage upon which nature is playing out its dynamic movements.
However, Einstein's discoveries proved that all of these are changing e.g. time dilation, curvature of space-time, gravitational waves etc. Here, Einstein proved that even the stage is dynamically changing.
Then you might argue that the speed of light is fixed and permanent. Well, that's only in vacuum. When light goes through other media, its speed changes.
So, absolutely nothing in the physical universe is permanent. Hence, Einstein's theories of relativity proved the Buddhist notion that apart from Nibbana, everything else is impermanent (anicca).
"Sabba sankhara anicca" - all conditioned and compounded things are impermanent.

As @ChrisW already indicated, Einstein never spoke or wrote that quote. Einstein appears to have occasionally made passing references to the Buddha in conversation, so the quote is likely concocted. Note that proponents of Abrahamic religions also quote Einstein out of context, most notably "God does not play dice with the universe", his reaction to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Einstein used "God" in this context to refer to the laws of physics, not a supernatural entity. In his own words:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god
is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share
the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is
mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of
religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of
humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual
understanding of nature and of our own being."

The Theories of Special and General Relativity do not stem from Buddhism, nor from any other philosophy or religion. I see answers here that claim

E=mc^{2}

can be substituted by

utu = pathavī x utujarūpa arising rate2

This is not the case.
the E stands for intrinsic energy, not just utu, which is related to temperature. The Abidharma forms of energy are closer to alchemy than to physics (water, fire, earth, etc.)
the m stands for relativistic mass. For a particle of finite rest mass m moving at a speed v relative to the observer, this means:

while pathavī in Abidharma stands for the Earth element, which has nothing to do with relativistic mass.
The c stands for light speed, which is the maximum velocity of event propagation in the universe. Utujarūpa means temperature-born materiality, which has nothing to do with event propagation. Photons do not equate termperature-born For example, an electron will emit a photon when it falls to a lower orbit. This has nothing to do with temperature, but is related to the quantized energy potential of the electron. Temperature is not quantized.
There are a lot of common principles in Buddhism and the scientific method, such as experimentation and independent verification. It is likely for this very fact that Einstein would refer to Buddhism in conversation. But trying to equate ancient doctrinal concepts with 20th century relativistic theory is a disservice to both disciplines.

Very well done. I'll take this to my bookmarks. (+1)

There are uncountable relativity appear in the last cannon of tipitaka, paṭṭhāna-abhidhamma.
So, the theory of relativity appeared in a little part of abhidhamma, such as utujarūpa of rūpa section:
In physic:

e = m x c2

Can convert to abhidhamma as:

utu = pathavī x utujarūpa arising rate2.

Note:
utu = thermal energy (in abhidhamma where is thermal energy, there are the other energies, such as pathavī, āpo, tejo, vāyo, vaṇṇa, sadda, ganda, rasa, and ojā, too. But some of them may be not appear to senual organs).
pathavī = mass.
utu-ja-rūpa = new arising form that is caused by thermal energy of the other form.
utujarūpa arising rate = rate of arising and vanishing of each utu-ja-rūpa.
In abhidhamma, mind arising is fastest (more than a trillion times per finger stroke), the form is slower 17 times (17 mind arose = 1 form vanished).
Also, in the path of purification, CHAPTER XX — PURIFICATION BY KNOWLEDGE & VISION OF WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT THE PATH 4. Comprehension of the material page 22, wrote:

There are 4-5 inherited generations of kamma-paccaya-āhāra-samuṭṭhāna, kamma-paccaya-utu-samuṭṭhāna.
There are 2-3 inherited generations of citta-paccaya-āhāra-samuṭṭhāna, citta-paccaya-utu-samuṭṭhāna.
There are 12 inherited generations of āhāra-paccaya-āhāra-samuṭṭhāna (however, depending on  the quality of āhāra).
There are uncountable inherited generations of utu-paccaya-utu-samuṭṭhāna (depending on utuniyāma+bījaniyāma).
There are 12 inherited generations of utu-paccaya-āhāra-samuṭṭhāna.

The bold quote above is used in nuclear reaction.

However, theravāda buddhism trying to solve, avoid, and get out of every problem (suffering),  so buddha and commentary did not explain too much about the form, because it is just 1 of 5 aggregates, 1 of 3 bhava. Therefore buddha and commentary have to spend the explaining time to the other parts of problem (suffering), too. But science, which formed from Capitalism culture, spending too much time with just form part (5 kāmaguṇa), which can sensed at  the sensual organs (5 āyatana) by 5 sensual viññāṇa. Because the people in capitalism can't clearly comprehension the whole problem system (suffering in paṭiccasamuppāda cycle).
So buddha taught in Siṃsapāvana Sutta:

"What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa
  leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord.
  Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
  knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
  taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
  with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
  not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
  direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
  not taught them.
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of
  stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have
  taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected
  with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to
  disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
  knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught
  them.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
  the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
  duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of stress.'"

To be honest I doubt Albert Einstein was actually very much influenced by Buddhism. Einstein was basically a scientist and an atheist almost whole his life.
His primary religion was science - the science which can make us understand the physical universe but tells us nothing about God or spiritual matters. So his advocating Buddhism as "the religion of the future" would have been mostly for practical and, indeed, opportunistic ends.

I think i understand the core philosophy of special relativity as it was intended and Buddhist texts make statements about the 'world' which align.
Ie ebts say ''that in the world which perceives & conceives the world is called 'a world..". Or 'this is called the all; eye & visible form, nose & smells, tongue & tastes, ear & sounds, body & bodily sensations, ....mind & ideas. This is calléd All".
This is quite similar to what is arrived at by thinking in terms of special relativity where notions of  conception & perception are tied with measurement & observation.
Imo a neat part about sr and mathematics in general is that it is in concept all impersonal and there is only a counting of what is measured or observed.
IE when algebra tells us that negative multiplied by negative gets a positive result, we don't ask to explain it in terms of a doctrine of self; the idea of a self or other stupid ideas don't come into play here.
It is very elementary and truthful as dealing with discernable elements which can be seen & known by intellect and agreed upon.
Buddhism goes a lot further in mapping out causal relations of real elements in one's thinking and taking false elements out the equation of one's understanding.
The Dhamma also makes a statement about origination and a discernable cessation of one's particular frame of referance as pleasant and something to be realized by directing the mind to cessation of perception & feeling rather than a change in a perception to a particularly blissful perception experienced by a mind arising in dependence on a life-force & nutriment.
Another circumstance to note is that Buddhism aims to rid one of delusion and gain sanity which is closer to cognitive therapy and psychiatric theory than physics.
Although the developing of sanity through scientific understanding of electrocolloidal & electromagnetic processes has been pursued more than one might think in the last 100 years, ie the work on general semantics in "science & sanity" by korzybski, there is still nothing as complete as Buddhism which has one train discipline & manipulate awareness to discern it's cessation.
Nothing being as complete there are many cool ideas and thoughts that align and do clear up people's wrong views like philosophy in general be it in math, physics or paradoxes & thought experiments.
The Dhamma is just connecting all the dots for you and explains that understanding can also be thought of as a faculty & a power to be developed.
I think these are the core differences.