text:
Is there common ground between the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism?
I am interested in Buddhism and the book Tao Te Ching, written by Lao-Tzu in c. 600 BC. Is there common ground between these two Eastern philosophies?
link to audio of Tao Te Ching

Commenting because this is not worth being a full-blown answer, but I'll refer you to the superb Great Minds of the Eastern Tradition audible course. It's usually expensive but is currently on sale for under $50 (e.g. at audible.com). Suffice to say that there are extensive cross connections between Buddhism and Daoism, and this course explain them in a really accessible way.

@tkp Can I thank you for the great minds recommendation. Have just bought it and listened to the  first few. Fantastic. Very cheap if you can get it as part of the audible.com intro offer

You might also consider Frithjof Schuon's 'Transcendent Unity of Religion'. Philosophical Taoism endorses the same neutral metaphysical description of Reality as Nagarjuna. This is made clear by Lao Tu's comment 'True worlds seem paradoxical'.     .

There is common ground. But there is common ground between Christianity and Buddhism, too. So...
A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself, I forget his name now (I can look it up) once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite.
Your question is broad, and so it's hard to answer. There are just too many sects... some Chinese ones like Huayan were influenced by Taoist philosophy so there is more common grounds... and then there are Taoist sects that were significantly influenced by Buddhism, like the Quanzhen School...
In the Pure Land tradition, the great patriarch Tan-Luan, was initially a Taoist teacher. He wanted immortality but couldn't achieve it. Then he met the Indian Bodhiruci who gave him the Infinite Life Sutra, and Tan-Luan was so delighted by this sutra that he burned all his Taoist texts and followed Buddhism alone. If this story is true, then we can say at least one person didn't think the two were compatible. Tan-Luan sought immortality, but it occurred to him that when Taoism speaks of immortality, it does so from a point of view of attachment to existence, while Buddhism's ultimate point is nirvana which is neither-existence-nor-nonexistence (suchness). Something far removed from existence and non-existence.

I feel you are taking your view of Taoism from limited sources. I've heard Taoists criticise the views you contrast with Buddhism as being incorrect. I'd say a correct view of Taoism and Buddhism allows them to be syncretised. Lao Tsu tells us that existence and non-existence are just as Nagarjuna describes, extreme views to be overcome. The sages all obtain their knowledge from the same place. .  .   .  ,

I've read that one of the things that Taoism and Buddhism have in common is a sense of the ineffable. The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching go

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
  The name that can be named is not the eternal name

meaning perhaps that the Tao is beyond words so everything that you read about it ... well that's not the real thing.
Contrast that to the Flower sermon where the Buddha does talk and instead just holds up a flower. When he did this ...

The disciples were greatly confused. Buddha quietly displayed the
  lotus to each of them. In turn, the disciples did their best to
  expound upon the meaning of the flower: what it symbollized, and how
  it fit into the body of Buddha’s teaching.

however Mahakasyapa understood and smiled. The Buddha said

“What can be said I have said to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what
  cannot be said, I have given to Mahakashyapa.”

So again beyond words.
I don't think it is too much of a stretch to see the Taoist influence within this Chineses Buddhism sutra. Certainly if it isn't a direct influence then it is something that the two religions had in common.

The first line of the Tao Te Ching seems to me to be saying, among other things, that the map is not the territory, i.e. that the description or the thing-described is not the thing. Whereas the Flower Sermon is 'direct seeing', i.e. "here is a thing".

@ChrisW Where did you get this interpretation from? The first line of the Tao Te Ching doesn't say that. It rather says that "the territory that can be mapped is not the true territory". I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but that seems to be the closest analogy to the map-and-territory metaphor.

@michau It's just my interpretation. I get it e.g. from the 3rd line, "The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth" ... IMO the 'nameless' is the (whole, eternal) thing itself before it's described or analyzed, before things are identified; and the 'named' are the myriad mental 'formations' i.e. the map. Unfortunately I have no special insight into the Tao Te Ching itself: I find it so gnomic that it's only by interpreting it as Buddhist doctrine that I find I can make much intellectual sense of it.

@ChrisW my lens is science, so I interpret both by it. In the case of "the map is not the territory", it seems to be about tacit knowledge. It's like saying "a YouTube tutorial on car driving is not the driving itself", which in its turn sounds like a zen koan?

@michau - The first line of the Tao Te Ching tells us that Reality is beyond conceptual fabrications, just as Nagarjuna tells us. When the former says 'True words seem paradoxical' he is telling us that we need to use Nagarujana's method of 'Two Truths' to speak about Reality. The two clearly share exactly the same world-view, as we would expect given their method of enquiry. . . .   . ,

Wuwei, as how I understand it, has these understandings, depending on the context:

You do something because you are born for it and do it without wondering why you need to do or learn how to do it (e.g. trees produce oxygen not because oxygen is needed for animals, but because they need photosynthesis)
When you are doing it you are being present in the moment, and allow life to lead you to something unexpected, yet you do not get confused and unprepared when the unexpected occurs
Your action has been simplified to its most basic parts so it can be accomplished in the most efficient and effortless ways
You don't need to do anything because you see the order from the chaos, and you see the big picture from above
You do something impossible or insane with confidence and fearlessness, because you have the knowledge (e.g. sailing into a storm with a smile)

Therefore, I think while Buddhism is about avoiding attachments to not having sufferings, Daoism is about attaching and having no suffering at all.

Taoism is also about detachment. There is, after all, only way to transcend suffering.  .

I think this is just a language game? The concept of wuwei is about detaching to the source of suffering too

In the Dao De Ching it is stated that:
"Therefore it is said:
He who desireless is found
The spiritual of the world will sound.
But he who by desire is bound
Sees the mere shell of things around."
One whose mind is filled with desire only sees the surface of things as they really are. A mind filled with desire sees the world as something to be controlled and used as tools or means for achieving one's will. And so, the mind does not understand that nature, in its deep mystery, is beyond the scope of language and reason.
The world does not need to be controlled, but the mind to be tamed. The wise one understand the changing and ever flowing rhythms of nature, and let's him/herself to go with it: that is Wu-Wei, or effortless action.
Early Buddhism and Daoism (as expressed in the DDC) point to desire/greed and instrumentalization of nature/the world (as defined in SN 35.116) as the causes for unbinding with the Tao/Samsara.
Have a wonderful day!


text:
Different Robes (colours)
Why do Mahayana and Theravada monks wear different robes (colours)? I understand the colour of Theravada robes represent the colour used in the time of the Buddha. What is the meaning of the yellow/red in mahayana Buddhism?

Did you see this question? http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1642/what-is-the-meaning-behind-different-robe-colors

great, is is a duplication indeed. I have tried to close it, but it didnt work

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What if there is no rebirth?
Recently, I found a rather interesting quote of HH Dalai Lama XIV, which he said in Bodhgaya interviews, 1981:

“Buddhists believe in rebirth. But suppose through various investigative means, science comes one day to a definite conclusion that there is no rebirth. If this is definitely proven, then we must accept it and we will accept it.” — see, for example, here

First of all, it's worth mentioning that this phrase seems to be one of the most progressive thought I have ever seen.
However, I would like to know, how exactly the Buddhist community will behave in case if, indeed, scientific method proves some day that one of key concepts of Buddhism (not necessarily, rebirth) is not correct. Obviously, it's impossible to rewrite sacral books, rethink important consequences of a mentioned concept, restructure rituals, etc.
Also, many people are happy with current paradigms, and such discovery may have disastrous effect on many of them.

This question is highly speculative and invites some opinion-based discussion rather than solid facts or information.

@Rabbit you are right, it's a bit speculative since there is no key Buddhist concept scientifically refuted. What I want is just the term "we will accept it" expanded — accept how?

The problem is that any answer would be talking about something that hasn't happened yet so instead of facts, there would be a bunch of opinions and predictions. Personally, I think that Dalai Lama is so confident about what he teaches that he is not afraid to confront it with science. He himself is consciously being reborn so how can science disprove something he did already 14 times? I would always consider this quote as an expression of his confidence in teachings. But again, it is only my personal opinion.

I agree with Rabbit. General policy on all SE sites is that hypothetical question are closed because there is no way of telling if an answer is correct and which answer is best for that matter (see also the FAQ)

I respectfully disagree with Rabbit on this occasion. There is a crucial metaphysical point at stake that can be answered with precision and without recourse to unsubstantiated opinion. I've given an answer that goes, I hope, some ways towards that.

@tkp I like your answer but it essentially does not answer the problem of the OP which is 'how Buddhists will behave if science disproves something'. To accommodate that I would suggest to reword the question itself so that your great answer would fit.

@Rabbit could I just agree with both tkp and you. I think there is a potentially good question here that is getting a good amount of interest. I think i would be a shame to shut this down but maybe OP would be willing to reframe the question to avoid this and take away the hypothetical nature. The question works if rebirth is disproven or if someone rejects rebirth. What is the interpretation of the Dharma without rebirth? Careful rewording could work though it would be excellent if OP could do it and keep all the answers in scope. A challenge perhaps

@Rabbit, I can't really disagree with you there. But the point I'm going for (which I think you see) is that in practice the OP's question could be assuming something about science that shouldn't be assumed and so is therefore worth addressing. Here's a suggestion for the OP: what about modifying the question to be something like "To what extent could science disprove aspects of Buddhism (such as rebirth), and what would happen if it did?" That seems to keep all current answers in scope, but also exposes, for discussion, the assumption I'm talking about. Would that work?

Let's see what community thinks about it. I cancelled my close vote as I'm off to meditation retreat. Have fun and see you on Monday!

@tkp I do agree, but I noticed that the community also dislikes the idea of "certain aspect"; the answer would be, "depending on what aspect is disproved". OTOH, I did not want to make my question too specific (e.g., focusing on rebirth only). Then again, since I'm only learning, I would not resist any outcome.

@bytebuster, I think you've already avoided that problem by referring to "key concepts". By saying "key" and giving rebirth as an example, it seems clear (to me, anyway) that you're not asking things like "What if science proved the historical Buddha was born on the border of and not actually in the Shakya region" You're interested in, well ... in key things, right? There's certainly reasonable debate over what gets to be key, but for the purposes of your question I think it's pretty clear.

Which Buddhist community? The secular Buddhists already think reincarnation is at best irrelevant. I think the Dalai Lama is secretly rooting for his team and is confident that it will prevail. It's like those scientists that offer 1 million dollars for proof of psychic powers-- not because they are so open minded about psychic powers, but because they are so solidly confident science will prevail. Anyhow, I sort of agree, as worded, this is a discussion generating question, not so much based in answerable facts.

There is a freely available talk by Vessantara, an order member in the sangha I practice with (Triratna) that addresses this kind of issue. If one entirely rejected rebirth (or if it were proven to be untrue) then what would this do to the Dharma? My previous opinion was rebirth was a cultural accretion not a core teaching so if rebirth wasn't true the Dharma would remain essentially the same. There might be some reframing and reemphasising but the essentials would be the same. However Vessantara disagrees. The following parts of the Dharma would be shaken, possibly irreparably damaged (list not exhaustive)

The Bodhisattva Ideal. It is difficult to see how one could hope to aim for the enlightenment of all beings in one lifetime. It's not going to happen
The Buddha enlightenment experience. A central part of this was his visions of previous rebirth. Are we saying that this is not true. What other parts of his enlightenment experience are also not true
Death proximate Karma. There is no rebirth so the powerful karmic effects at the point of death are unreal.
The niddanas. There are one lifetime interpretations of these admittedly but other interpretations (3 lifetimes) would be thrown out
Enlightenment as the deathless. This is common imagery in texts such as the Dhammapada. Without rebirth what could deathless mean? It's unclear (to me)
Nirvana as 'blowing out'. Enlightenment as the concept of stepping off the wheel of samsara. Without rebirth there is no endless round so what are we stepping off from.

I could go on (i won't). I was just impressed with the talk and I think it's an interesting exercise to see where a rejection or disprove of rebirth might end up. I'm certainly not banging the drum for rebirth, in fact I remain at best agnostic. I know that rebirth-less interpretation of each of the six points are available but the question is - are we twisting the Dharma completely out of shape? This talk argues that we would be.
As a footnote an alternative view is available from another order member, Nagapriya in his book Exploring Karma and Rebirth. This book takes the opposite to Vessantara and argues that all rebirth-less interpretations are valid and do not lose their meaning. The talk and the book taken together give excellent (and opposing) views - companion pieces almost.

Crab Bucket, +1. I think this and other answers show that it's being answered with substance and without recourse to opinion, so I hope it doesn't close. (Suggestion: remove your initial sentence! :-) )

@tkp hahahaha. A very fair point. I've taken out the first sentence. It anticipates what neither of us want to happen. :-)

+1 for listing problems that, regardless of soundness challenges of the metaphysical, have important practical consequences.

Sometimes an apparently well-formed question can suffer from a "category error", such as in "Is the present King of France bald?" or "What noise would the programming language Pascal make if you dropped it on the floor?" In such cases, an appropriate way to "answer" the question is to point out the category error, instead of just saying, for example in the previous examples, "No" and "'CLANG!' (although some authorities argue "SPLAT!" is more accurate)". This Buddhism question isn't completely prone to this problem, but one aspect of it might be. So I'm going to attempt that kind of answer.
First, I'm with the Dalai Lama in that if science proves something in Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism would have to adjust. However, it's important to understand that there are certain kinds of true things that science simply cannot prove wrong. That's not because, as with many things in the past, our science just isn't advanced enough yet. It's because the scope of science doesn't cover everything important we might want to say. This goes against the modern prevailing view, sometimes called, often by its detractors, "scientism", which is really a modern version of positivism. However, it is not difficult to see that such scientism isn't obviously true.++
As an example, take the law of gravity, and in particular the component that says that "the gravitational force between two masses varies inversely with the square of the distance between them". That is very deeply established in science, and has been for centuries. If it were proved wrong, it would shake things up a lot. But science could indeed prove it wrong. In fact, there is already some evidence, surprising though it is, that in certain situations, the inverse square law isn't exact.
But now take the proposition "2+2=4". Philosophers would refer to that as a "necessary" truth. Science cannot ever prove that statement wrong because science relies on that statement and, more to the point, science does not deal with such truths. They are important truths that lie outside of science (in fact the existence of such statements doesn't break positivism which is broader than scientism, but it does constitute something that science cannot disprove).
Another one: "people typically experience redness when looking at tomatoes". Now science could certainly show that the frequency of light reflected off tomatoes corresponds not with red light but with blue light, but that doesn't change the fact that we experience redness. Science would probably come up with a theory as to why we experience redness when exposed to blue light (for example, perhaps we'd discover that tomatoes emit a certain gas that confuses our brain's color recognition system, leading us to experience redness instead of blueness), but as I say that would explain why, it would not disprove that we experience redness.
So, what about something like "there is no rebirth". Well to me that is clearly a statement that lies outside the scope of science, certainly of science as we usually use the word. To be a "scientific" statement typically means in practice that we can construct some kind of experiment capable of allowing us to make observations confirming the statement's truth and, even more important, observations confirming the statement's falsehood. But scientific observations are observations of the natural world and it's not clear that "rebirth" is posited as a phenomenon within the natural world. Now it's possible to argue, or at least to claim, that there is nothing but the natural world, but that's just begging the whole question. A claim that "natural science is all there is" is itself not a statement of natural science, so where does that leave it?
This doesn't mean, of course, that there's nothing in Buddhism that science couldn't disprove, but it does exclude a whole bunch of things from being disproven in that way. For example, I'd say that the entirety of the Four Noble Truths lies outside the scope of science. I'm not saying that they are necessarily true, nor that they couldn't be shown to be false. But science cannot do that, any more than gardening or cookery can.
--
++ Note that I'm not saying that scientism argues that science can know everything. Even the scientistic view allows that some things may simply never be known. I'm making the point that scientism typically argues that if something is knowable, science will eventually, in principle, figure it out; and that if science cannot eventually, in principle, figure something out, then nothing else will.

If there is no rebirth, then there is no rebirth, the point with the Buddha's teachings is that they are useful not only for the next life, but for this one! That is exactly why there are many debates about Buddhism being a religion or a way of life, that is also why Buddhism can be used by people from other religions.
If you practice the Buddha's teachings at least you will leave good things behind (in case there is no rebirth).
I suggest you don't put to much focus on your next life, your focus should remain here and now. In the practice!

This make a lot of sense, for the second part of my question. But what about the first part? Would it require changes in teaching? You know, many people understand the books literally.

I will try to rescue the question from speculative paths.
It's not a stretch to see the Dalai Lama's words expressing the buddhist original commitment to what is real. But the question underneath is about how one's faith (or the faith of a community) is confronted with a different reality. Yet, the canon has quite a few teachings and warnings about faith (of the "kind" talked about here), and the insistent plea for direct knowledge.
The discovery of false claims no doubt diminish our trust in the texts and may interfere with our commitment to try its suggestions. But it is worth noting that the tone of these texts is not "take it as I say", but of "come and try [and at this point, here is what I expect you to have seen]" -- exercises followed by a map, with evaluation cues.
Buddhism, in its original form, is not alone in its careful attitude towards foreign propositions not tasted by one's mouth. Science has similar flavor (though much more loose in regard to one's direct experience, and much more strict in regard to communication and "observability"), with a community reasonably aware of its stance. Thus, one could reasonably argue that what ultimately survive from both science and buddhism (in its essence) are not the factual assertions made therein (they may as well be discovered to be otherwise). However, its goal, its method and its evaluation strategies are something to preserve.
Maybe the map is wrong. In science, often it is. Yet, trained scientists cherish the system above any temporary result. The system reinforces how to approach itself.
A buddhist could say exactly the same thing about the canon. "why are you clinging to beliefs you did not investigate and could cause you misery?" it asks directly of the reader.

Lets say science proves that there's no rebirth. What does scientific proof really mean to you? It means you are putting your faith on the scientists who supposedly prove it. It is not your direct knowledge. Rebirth is already proven within the Buddhist community. Proven by Lord Buddha and the Ariya Sangha who can see the past and future lives. Even a non-Buddhist who attains the knowledge of seeing past births through perfecting the Jhanas sees the process of rebirth. So Buddhists don't have a problem in accepting rebirth on faith.  Because we take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha instead of scientists. Furthermore, what is proven in Buddhism can be known by direct knowledge. Scientific proof is not known by direct knowledge. It's always a hypothesis. Otherwise, it can't change from time to time.
"If this is definitely proven" is the key phrase in what Dalai Lama has said. Proven according to science or proven according to Buddhism? In other words, proven by hypothesis(which again may change in the future) or proven by direct knowledge? Such sayings are typically targeted at audiences with materialistic views. If it gets them to be more interested in the practice of Dhamma, it serves the purpose.

Ugh. This answer really lowers the standard of discourse on this site. It isn't even self-consistent: apparently lack of direct knowledge is only important when it's something you might disagree with? The attitude expressed here is directly contrary to the idea of thinking about anything for oneself.

Nope! When you don't have direct knowledge, faith in those who have direct knowledge is important as opposed to faith in those who hypothesize.

But you can only hypothesize that there are people who have direct knowledge, there is no proof. So all in all it is a completely arbitrary choice.

@michau, no, you can practice and attain direct knowledge yourself while you still live. You don't need to take it on faith forever.

@Sankha I understand that only enlightened people see such things directly. So the chance that I see that directly as I live now is infinitesimally small.

@michau, that's just Theenamidda and Vicicicca at work. Read the Maha Satipattana Sutta. It takes a person 7 days to a maximum of 7 years to attain Arahantship, if he practices Satipatthana properly.

If science were to prove literal rebirth wrong, then Buddhists would have to accept the fact that literal rebirth does not exist, and begin to examine the possibility that the Buddha meant moment to moment rebirth and we were interpreting the teaching incorrectly. I don’t know how science would do this but since the practice asks you to look and see for yourself, if you were to somehow discover this truth (that rebirth was not literal) the practice would dictate that you acknowledge it.

The final goal in Buddhism is to overcome rebirth, as all misery (old age, sickness, company of people you do not like, parting from loved ones) starts with birth as explained in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.
Once you reach full liberation you have no more rebirths.

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


text:
Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?
Once in a Dhamma talk I heard a Theravada Monk saying he did not believe in such stories, because some of them contradict the Buddha's teachings (suttas), I don't know if that was his personal opinion or a general view in Theravada Buddhism.

The Theravada accepts the Jataka stories as commentarial literature; they are not canonical, but are considered a reliable account by a learned Buddhist scholar. What are canonical are the verses that accompany the stories, as that is how 547 of the latter were easily remembered. Number of verses per varies; some have a single verse, others have over 100, I think.
It's not uncommon for modern Theravada Buddhists to question the authenticity of the stories, especially given their often fantastical content. Probably, though, it is more common for Theravada Buddhists to accept the stories far more at face value than they really should, again given their content.

No, it is not a general view. Theravada tradition does accept the Jataka stories. It is a part of Khuddaka Nikaya. But it is not unnatural for someone to doubt any part of the Tipitaka at any given time. Doubt can appear in the mind at any time. Apart from that, some teachers might opt to leave the Jataka stories out when they preach to western audiences as it may not be appealing to them.

The point he made was that they were introduced later in Buddhism and some of the messages there, in his view, dont make sense in a Buddhist perspective like giving yourself to a tiger, a human life can benefit much more people than a tiger. That was just one example

Well, the whole cannon was written centuries after the parinibbana of the Buddha. That doesn't mean it isn't authentic. If I remember right, the story you are referring to is the one in which the Bodhisatta sacrifices himself to a leopardess to stop it from eating it's own cubs due to extreme hunger. That is called Dana Paramatta Paramita. You have to perfect each Paramita in 3 ways to become a fully enlightened Buddha. I don't see any conflicts with that

My understanding of Theravada is that it only accepts the Pali Canon as canonical and any other teaching that is in conflict with the Pali Canon is rejected. As the Jataka stories are actually part of the Pali canon, it can be said that Theravada Buddhism accepts the Jataka stories.

The Jataka Tales appear in the Khuddaka Nikaya. Some later compositions on the Jataka Tales expand upon the original stogies hence some parts in these works might be fictitious or exaggerated.


text:
What are the main warning signs in a Buddhist centre?
I have been to different temples/centers/monasteries from different schools, most of them I would return regularly, but in a few I found things that didn't agree with some personal views. I must say 100% of the time I found people with nothing but good intentions, but not always I agreed with the methodology, practices or some core believes, for example: Having a "cult style".
That said, I would like to ask: What are the main "warning signs" (if any) we should look for when going to a temple for the first time? (I'm not talking about a simple visit, but Dhamma talks, classes and meditation).
This question aims to help beginners, it is very hard to identify "unusual practices" when a person is just starting with Buddhism and have no idea what is Vinaya or the Suttas for example.

I am really unsure what you are asking for. If you could explain more I think you might get more specific answers.

Christopher, I am talking about practices not aligned with Vinaya or the Suttas, there are countless examples, but I think we could list the main ones, in order to help beginners.

Your question title could maybe be clearer. At first sight I thought you were asking about signs such as "Remove your shoes!" or "No throwing food at the monks!" Also, are you asking only about temples, or about Buddhist "centers" more generally, or, going in the other direction, about specific teachers?

about Buddhist centres, let me edit the question, it will be clearer for sure

Best is to do some reading of the main Suttas, such as: Anapanasati Sutta, Maha Satipatthana Sutta and see if what the center in question teaches corresponds with the Suttas.
Also see if the operations / techniques adhere to this:

Should ideally be run by donations and not by charging a fee
Should not be cultish
Should allow free thought and inquiry
Should not have practices which harm oneself or make oneself agitated or do the same for others

The last point you can only know when you have practiced the techniques taught at the place and found out you are are at peace and also cordial with others. Now if you do find a lack of peace and cordiality, it may be there is something wrong with how or what you practice. However, you should then take care -- and it is easy to misjudge this -- that you are indeed following their instructions. If you do that, and rule out the possibility that you haven't followed their instructions (in which case, maybe you're just doing your own thing and that is the problem), then there is a good chance there is something wrong with what you have been taught at the particular center.
Sometimes certain traditions may not encourage practices outside the tradition (including reading). In that case you have to look at the motivation behind it. Is it trying to have a grip or hold over the person? Or is it concern that undesired results may be brought about by mixing different techniques? Or is it concern about not being able to handle dangerous results of an unfamiliar technique? Many traditions are geared towards preserving the techniques exactly as handed down through generations and due to this, variation may hamper the results/benefits. This is why you have to be very careful and try to look at it without prejudice.

Hey Suminda. +1, but I've offered some pretty big edits, all just to get the English straight but in the process heavy restructuring of your second and third paragraphs was needed. As a result, there's a reasonable chance I've blown away some of your meaning, so go ahead and accept/reject as you like.

Accepted made a small edit my self.

I was a notified to review the edits and so I tried to further improve it. I hope it's faithful to your intention Suminda.

Any improvement is good.

I think this is a very important question, but I can't see any way that a beginner who is unfamiliar with the Dharma can figure it out without essentially moving at least a little off the beginner's position. There's really no way to "bootstrap" yourself into trusting teachers without doing some upfront work yourself. So the main advice I'd give on that front is, go study the Dharma!
But perhaps there are some general rules of thumb that could also be useful. For example, to begin with perhaps a newbie should stick with the more established traditions: Theravada, Zen, mainline Tibetan, etc. That would necessarily exclude things like Soka Gakkai International (for example), but it's not at all arguing that SGI etc are bad. Rather it's simply to say that until someone finds their feet and understands what all the styles of Buddhism have in common, it's probably best to stick with more established styles, and then as one comes to understand things decide if moving to a newer or less well known approach is right for the person concerned.
Another general principle is to watch out for the "cult style" as the OP mentioned. Some good pointers in that direction are to be found around the net -- here for example. So if they're demanding unreasonable amounts of money, or seem to be highly dependent on the personality of the teacher, it's worth putting those on the list of "reasons for possible concern".
A third point is perhaps more controversial, but I'll offer it anyway being based on my own experience. I confess that to some extent I am a newbie in this situation. I have studied quite a bit, and have established a basic meditation practice, but I still haven't yet decided on a teacher, tradition, and so on. I consider that to be a very important part of my practice right now. And one of my considerations is to look at the life of the tradition's founder and those of its major figures. For that reason, I find myself a bit hesitant to engage with, for example, Shambhala. I still find myself trading off the huge contributions they have made, in terms of publication and teaching, and also some of their ideas, with the lifestyles and actions of the founder Chogyam Trungpa and his successor Ösel Tendzin. This is a very personal thing, and as I say I'm not rejecting Shambhala outright, but I suggest that observing the correspondence between the actions and teachings of major figures in the organization is a useful test.

Great answer! In my country there is a buddhist group that is growing considerably and it is probably the biggest one now, I have been on their centre many times and people have really good intentions there, but a few things made me give it up (mainly the way they treat authors outside their group, all books are from the same person there and the library doesn't exactly encourage people to read anything else), I follow Theravada, but I read books from H.H Dalai Lama, because they are great and provide good understanding, why should I not read it, simply because he is Mahayana? ;)

Health warning - this is a answer based on particular personal experience but I hope it's got some value in answering the question
I practice with a sangha (Triratna) which has been accused of cultish behaviour in the past. There is a decent sized article on wikipedia about these allegations. But to summarise the concerns have been around lack of proper lineage, sexual misconduct from the founder and particular centres developing a cult of personality leading to exploitation of newer members. This sounds dreadful and alarming particularly as I write it down. In fact they have changed their name since then from FWBO to Triratna. They never publicly admitted to this but I suspect that part of the reason was to put some distance between the organisations controversial past and the more positive present. So why on earth do I practice with them?
I think that you can only judge a centre through contact with your local group. For instance these are the questions that I have asked myself

Does the group seem welcoming to newcomers?
Are I comfortable with the practices?
What are the people who have been around for a while like? Do they seem like regular sane people?
Am I comfortable with how money is been asked for? I like beginners course
to be just chargeable at a reasonable rate just as if I am signing up
for a night class. It might be different to for you.
Is the  centre supportive of people with families.
Is there events that welcome non-Buddhists
Is there a well structured supportive program for beginners
Can the centre cope with descenting opinions and views from alternative teachers.
Is there reference or study of traditional canonical texts e.g. Pali
Canon, White Lotus Sutra etc...

As far as Buddhist practice goes in my humble opinion so long as they are teaching the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path then I would say this is Buddhist enough to engage with them. If further down the line they seem to be veering off then you can always try elsewhere.
This is an interesting and challenging question for me because I have chosen to spend 7 years practicing with a Buddhist group that has has a controversial past (although it has been received a lot more positively in the last 30 years or so).
If I can end with why I chose to go there in the first place

I had a personal recommendation from someone I trusted
The centre was near to where I worked
The didn't seem to do a lot of chanting/ritual which I couldn't get on with at the time

Are they great reasons to commit to a particular centre? Probably not - maybe I just lucked out because I've had a very postive 7 years.

The place I have been to, faced similar accusations, but I left it for other reasons: The classes were 100% about the "feel good / self help" modern Buddhism, yes they were helpful, but not even once I heard a mention to a sutta, I have tried to introduce deeper discussions many times, but it was useless. Months later I went to a Theravada Centre and in the first visit they offered me books and CDs on the suttas, the books encouraged the reader right from the beginning to read the suttas, that was enough for me, it felt more authentic.

@konrad01 That is an incredibly good point. The centre that I practice with does make frequent reference to canonical texts. I've just finished a study group with the Dhammapada for instance. When I have felt less happy is when we are digging into the founders opinions - not always a problem but there was one book in particular that I felt was very non standard. That said - i voiced my unhappiness with it and everyone was willing to accept this even if a lot of people actually thought the text was great.

I absolutely agree with Konrad's point here. I think there is room for the "feel good" style but if it can't be traced easily and directly back to the sutras, or isn't grounded in them, that has to be a BIG warning sign. Another positive sign is if there is great respect for, and links to, other traditions even when there are disagreements between them.

I think it's quite hard to make generalizations about Buddhist practices due to the wide range of practices acceptable within different schools. My understanding is some schools don't use the vinaya and the suttas most emphasized can be different by school as well.
If someone were to have a strict interpretation of the 5th precept and not be aware that alcohol is used in a limited way in some rituals in Tibetan Buddhism, they might jump to the conclusion that those rituals were not proper Buddhist practice and perhaps even that the temple was a bad place.
I think the most important "warning" for any beginner is that Buddhism is such a rich and varied religion and it can look so different from one tradition to another that the most important thing may be to simply see, hear, and experience without judging as one visits different centers and learns more about Buddhism.
Eventually new people find the tradition that suits them best; but that will be different from one person to the next. What a great Western* problem to have; so many choices! =)
*I'm assuming most new Buddhists would be western but perhaps I shouldn't be so judgmental. :)

I agree with the point regarding different traditions, but some practices should not be accepted in any tradition I think, but maybe I am wrong...

@konrad01, since your question referred to those who "have no idea what is Vinaya or the Suttas for example" I'm pointing out that these are not universal in Buddhism. If your question is really about deception or misguiding followers; that's really a different question.

the question was broad, I admite it, but I wanted to see the tips from other people without narrowing too much or giving my own examples

"All authentic practices of the Buddha carry within them three essential teachings called the Dharma Seals. These three teachings of the Buddha are: impermanence, no self and nirvana. Just as all-important legal documents have the mark or signature of a witness, all genuine practices of the Buddha bear the mark of these three teachings." -Thich Nhat Hanh
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1647

I was looking for more tangible things, practical.


text:
What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with eyes closed?
I'm not normally distracted by noise, touch, smell or taste when I meditate. But I do keep looking and looking and looking. Sometimes I'll fixate on a crack between the spars of wood on the floor, sometimes something of more soteriological value like a statuette.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with ones eyes open or ones eyes shut?

One of the practices I do is a just sitting practice. I think it is the same as a zazen practice but we (Triratna Buddhists) don't use that terminology. For this practice we are encourage to keep our eyes open as the practice is just being with whatever is. This includes all 6 senses so our sight is part of that and should be brought into the meditation practice.
That said I rarely do this. I find the sight sense overwhelming and I find it much easier to do this with just hearing, touch and bodily sensations. I think sight is our dominant sense so it's not surprising to me that it's hard to experience to world as it is when you are looking at it. I find sight and the sense of self is so close that it's difficult to untangle it. We are often told that it's impossible to do 'just sitting' wrongly. However if it were possible to do it wrong I'm sure I would be.
As other answerers have said eyes open is a good technique to guard against the sloth and torpor hindrance. I've actually have been recommended the Padmasambhava stare as an antidote (the great man himself is shown below doing it). Open you eyes as wide as you can and go for the full stare. It actually works - you feel less tired. The downside is that you look ludicrous. However that shouldn't matter as hopefully everyone else is meditating with their eyes shut!!

LOL. Dude I totally do that Padma stare by accident and I thought it was a bad thing (strain in the body=bad). Hm... My face naturally goes into Padma stare whenever I am in deep meditative contemplation or focus.

Meditating with the eyes open allows more connection to the sensory experience, while meditating with the eyes closed provides more insulation from distraction. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. With less distraction, it's easier to stabilize the mind; this might be very helpful for some people.  On the other hand, with less sensory input, it's easier to get lost in your own little world, lost in wandering thoughts, lost in experiences of bliss that might arise from strong states of concentration. In addition with long-term practice it's somewhat easier to develop a sense of separation from the world, which is different from "non attachment" and can lead to people acting like they're better than everyone else, etc.
On the other hand, with eyes open and more sensory input, it may be overwhelming and difficult to stabilize the mind at all. Only a few people are probably capable of doing any kind of meditation while, say, staring at a busy street scene in Manhattan (but some are!) But on the other hand, the meditation practice that does develop will be more ensured to maintain a connection with the senses and the outside world. It is more likely to develop an equanimity and mental stability that is tolerant of the vicissitudes of the outside world, rather than an equanimity that compels one to "run away" to the forest, the mountains, the monasteries.
There is somewhat of a tendency that traditions emphasizing individual liberation from suffering teach meditation with the eyes closed; while traditions emphasizing first the development of compassion for others teach meditation with the eyes open. (Because of the differences mentioned above.) Nevertheless, in either case, there is some wiggle room for whatever works best for the individual at her/his current stage of development.
If you practice with a qualified teacher, someone who is good at deeply perceiving you rather than merely spouting lists of instructions, then they will be able to give you good advice. Otherwise, feel free to experiment, keeping the opposing considerations in mind, and find a good balance for yourself.

For a beginner it is best to keep your eyes closed to be free from distractions. When you can concentrate better it is advisable to slightly open your eyes to let some light in if you are feeling drowsy or if it is in the early in the morning or late in the night.
When you have your eyes open you can get distracted but sometimes having them slightly open to get some light in it might help fight drowsiness. And vise versa if your eyes are closed.

In Vipassana meditation drowsiness is not a problem. You don't fight it. You make the drowsiness your object of meditation until it goes away.

Capala Sutta does mention fighting drowsiness. This is all relative. If it goes away by being are then all and good. If not you might have to try something else to make your time productive.

Capala Sutta is probably referring to Samatha pūrvaṅgama Vipassana technique. But in pure Vipassana, you don't wish for drowsiness to go away. You simply keep noting it.

There are subtle variation on how different lineages approach this.

The point is if you do something to make drowsiness go away, it's difficult to realize the Anatta nature. But it can be helpful if you are concentrating on attaining Jhana 1st.

That is true but having drowning itself prevents you seeing the Anatta nature hence if it is over powering you you need to make it go away though not to the extent you would do when practicing Samantha.

Overpowering you or not being under your control in itself is an instance of Anatta you can notice. :)

Yes. But this is at a gross level. Any of the Pancha Nivarana prevent you going into the subtleties.

Even at a gross level, if you just keep noting it without trying to kick it out or embrace it, it goes away. Then you can realize the Anicca nature on top of Anatta. Again, this has to do with whether you do Samatha 1st or Vipassana 1st.

When I read your question I felt one point where I would break your sentence:

I'm not normally distracted by noise, touch, smell or taste when I meditate. But I do keep
  looking and looking and looking. Sometimes I'll fixate on a crack between the spars of wood
  on the floor,

Instead of stepping further. What I did in your case were: observe myself, what is happening with me when I fixate on the crack? I'd give myself time to explore this myself. Observe it next time when it happens again... Just let it happen and look at that process and the change which it does on me, my mental status and my feelings...  also I'd observe that emotion that I'm beginning to fear that this is not good or allowed... ;-)

Another type of question is this:

What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with ones eyes open or ones eyes shut?

I myself like it more to close my eyes for focusing more on my insight. But also having eyes open is sometimes good, sometimes I even challenge myself to see what is different then if they're open for longer interval in my meditation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH2sEqrCza4
here Bhante  explaines really well the best way and why
hope it helps
claudia

Welcome to Buddhism SE. Please note that link only answer are discouraged on this site. If the link breaks your answer will be worthless.


text:
Rules for creating thangkas?
In this article the author discusses the problems of the commercialization of creating thangkas. Nowadays thangkas are created quickly and sold to tourists in shops in the streets of Lhasa.
I was wondering, what exactly makes a Tibetan Buddhist painting a genuine thangka? I know that traditionally thangkas are made according to a ritualistic process and have to follow strict iconography rules. But what exactly is this process? And where can I find information about these rules?
In the article the author gives an example of a iconography rule that apparently is formalized somewhere:

Buddhist texts dictate that the Ghanta is at the left hip and the Dorje in the right hand.

I know there are books available on this (e.g. this one). However, I'm not sure if the information in there is correct and complete. I'd prefer more original sources (translated scriptures) if that's possible.

It should be highlighted that there are two different aspects of thangka painting - iconography and methods. The book mentioned in the question describes the methods only and such knowledge should not be considered as a part of some Buddhist teachings. Iconography, however, is an important aspect of Tibetan Buddhism used in thankgas, statues and visualisation practices.
It is not straightforward to get access to texts describing the details of a given Buddha form. Tibetan Buddhism is based on a direct (usually oral) transmission and some texts are allowed to be used only after the authorization from the teacher. For example, I did receive the authorization to practise the meditation on Vajrasattva and I totally agree that the Dorje should be in the right hand of the deity. (Admittedly, this very detail can easily be checked on Google images by typing in 'Vajrasattva' or 'Dorje Sempa'.)
Iconography of Yidams (Buddha forms) is very strict and systematic. Every detail of a form has a meaning and thus if one wants to use the thankga (or a statue) for practise purposes, it has to be painted correctly. In practice it means that the artist should have a proper training - possibly a direct transmission from another artist and/or meditation master. I've also heard that the best if the artist is meditating on the Buddha form while he is painting it.
I know some people who are buying thangkas and statues in Nepal to be later distributed in European Buddhist centres. They said that they never buy ready-made thangkas as most probably they are made for the tourist market that is for the customers that use them as a decoration rather than for a proper Yidam practice. The most reliable way of obtaining a genuine thangka is to find a renowned artist and commission a specific thangka from him. Then one can be sure that it will be done with all the due care as the artist knows that he can spend days or weeks on one painting because he will be paid for his hard work immediately. Afterwards the thankga should be checked by some master who has a transmission on that Buddha form to confirm whether it indeed has been done correctly. One may wonder why it is such a hassle. Well, either one wants to have a nice decoration on the wall or one wants to practise on Yidams. There is nothing wrong with having some Buddha picture on the wall if one finds it inspiring and calm-giving. If the thangka lacks some details, no harm is actually done. If one wants to practise on Yidam, however, the Yidam itself has to be painted with all the fine details. But then it presumably means that one obtained some authorization and explanations from the teacher who is also able to check the quality of the thangka.


text:
How to use Sloth and Torpor as an object for meditation
The Satipatthana Sutta details the use of the sloth and torpor hindrance as an object for mindfulness meditation. Does anyone have any practical advice, either of a personal nature or from an established teacher, about how this might be achieved. Whenever I am suffering from this hindrance it completely negates any attempt at meditation of any sort. So I am interested about advice how tiredness could be used as grist for the meditation mill.

It is an experience, like any other, so you have to face it and recognize it clearly as it is. In our tradition we describe the experience of catching up the fatigue in one's awareness and reminding oneself "tired, tired"; if one's mindfulness is sharp, it will either disappear completely or, if the body needs sleep, one will fall asleep.
As the Mahasi Sayadaw describes this process:

Make a mental note of drowsy, when drowsy, and sleepy, when sleepy.
  After you have gained sufficient concentration in contemplating you
  will be able to overcome drowsiness and sleepiness and feel refreshed
  as a result. Take up again the usual contemplation of the basic
  object. Suppose you are unable to overcome a drowsy feeling, you must
  then continue to contemplate until you fall asleep.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebmed041.htm

Also, the commentary to the Satipatthana sutta has a number of ancillary techniques for overcoming sloth and torpor:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#sloth

Some things that have worked for me-- and may be entirely personal:

Investigating and noting the qualities of sleepiness and torpor - why do I know I am sleepy? what are the physical symptoms? What are the actions it is making me do (especially in the face - muscular action and vibrations around the eyes, mouth...)?
Investigating and noting whether there is actually some kind of wanting or agitation that is being veiled by the torpor.
Looking for that within me that perceives that I am sleepy, but is itself aware and alert (hint: don't expect to actually find it :) )

Sometimes these practices have caused my torpor to suddenly "flip" into very bright concentration. Sometimes torpor is actually concealing some unacknowledged agitation, and when that agitation is known, the sluggishness vanishes.
However, that's less likely if it's genuine physical exhaustion, or sluggishness caused by digesting a meal. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" :)


text:
Buddhist chant from video game
In the old game, Afterlife (Lucas Arts), there is a song that features a chant. The song is the most peaceful of the soundtrack, in my opinion, and I have always wondered what the chant was. The song can be found here: http://youtu.be/g3bXez65Fx0.
It seems that the song is Buddhist or Hindi inspired. It is similar to the chant played when founding buddhism in Civilization IV. A video of that chant can be found here: http://youtu.be/rUGH7x-i6ww.
If anyone can help me figure out what the mantra/chant of the song is, I would be eternally grateful. I cannot find an answer via Google.

the first one sounds like "OM MANI MA OM"

I puzzled out a similar problem on the Thai Angulimali soundtrack which did turn out to be Pali.
As you say, there seems to be two chants; one at the beginning, and another at 1:44. The on at the beginning sounds familiar; I bet it's Tibetan, maybe even Om Mani Padme Hum. I'm pretty sure you'd hear it on one of the movies about Tibetan Buddhism like Kundhun, Little Buddha, etc.
The second one sounds vaguely Indic, but nothing rings a bell. The best I can sound it out to be is something like:
asabha savana namehe
MobyGames (linked from Wikipedia) says a man named Peter McConnell did the music for Afterlife. His email is info@petermc.com. Probably the best lead.

Thank you for the response. I assume this is the chant in the middle of the song that starts around 1:44 in the first video. Do you recognize the one at the beginning of the video, or is that the one that you listed above?

Also, thank you for the email address, I just sent an email to Peter McConnell. I can update my question when I hear a response.

@HBennet right, sorry. I was referring to the second one. Updated my answer to include some speculation on the first.

@HBennet if you get an answer, post it as an answer.

I sent Peter McConnell an email in mid August, but have not yet heard from him.


text:
Is Mara a real being or something internal, produced by our own minds?
I have heard both interpretations, for me it would make more sense to be something from the mind as there is no creator God or its opposite in Buddhism, the image of a "temptator creature" like Satan sounds strange when we think about impermanence, on the other hand, some suttas that mention Mara may fit better with the concept of an external creature, I know this interpretation is questionable, so I'm making the question!

Two snippets from suttas refering to Mara as an entity/position:
MN 115:

"But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in what is possible and what is impossible?"
"Here, Ananda, a bhikkhu undersands [...]: "It is possible that a man might occupy the position of Māra [...]"

MN 50:

The venerable Maha Moggallana saw him [Māra] standing there and said: "I see you there too, Evil One. Do not think 'He does not see me.' You are standing against the door bar, Evil One.
"It happened once, Evil One, that I was a Māra named Dusi [...]

A sutta where a disciple directly asks what is Māra (SN 23.1):

"Venerable sir, it is said, 'Māra, Māra.' In what way, venerable sir, might Māra be?"
"When there is form, Radha, there might be Māra, or the killer, or the one who is killed."

The above are from Nanamoli/Bodhi translations. Bhikkhu Bodhi also writes in a note of the Majjhima Nikaya:

The name means "the Corrupter" or "the Corrupted One". In the Buddhist conception of the universe, the position of Mara, like that of Maha Brahma, is a fixed one that is assumed by different individuals in accordance with their kamma.

There are multiple Maras in Buddhism. One of them is a Deva. Other others being death, conditioned existence, and unskillful emotions.

Using the Three Universal Characteristics of impermanence, suffering and non-self, you can see that "mara" is a creation of the mind, this is why "mara" is in or attached to everything!!
It is only a cultivation of wisdom ( The Noble Eightfold Path) which can defeat mara, but also one needs mindfulness in each and every moment, as the experience changes from rebirth to rebirth via one of our six senses!!
Metta.


text:
How is Osho seen in the Buddhist community?
Is he considered a great leader? an unusual leader? Does he represents Buddhism? Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books?
The reason I asked is that Osho is (whether you like it or not) very popular in the west, and many people associate him with Buddhism. Once my grandpa came to me saying, "I finally read a book on Buddhism!", showing a book by Osho. So, before giving my personal view I would like to understand the point better. (some of his books are sold in Buddhist libraries!)

I lived in Pune (Poona) for three years (IT,) in front of Rajneesh's ashram (expat area of Poona,) and although I never set foot in his ashram, I have never seen a yellow robe around it - not one in three years. However, when I went to the Karla Caves in Karli, near Lonavala, I did see yellow robes.

While Osho is obviously not Buddhist, question is valid. So why downvote again? He is misperceived as Buddhist teacher by many.

The title question is a survey question and it is surveying the people reading this question. The "great leader" is pure opinion. Ditto for "unusual leader". "accepted"-- by who? "representative of Buddhism"--- this has the seed of a better question-- "Which beliefs of Osho are the same as Buddhism, which are different?"-- which does have an objective answer.

Friends, the point with Osho is that he is (like it or not) very popular in the west and many people associate him with Buddhism, once my grandpa came to me saying: "I finally read a book on buddhism!" showing a book by Osho. So, before giving my personal view I would like to understand the point better. (some of his books are sold in Buddhist libraries!)

Why not just read the Pali Canon. It would prevent anyone to misinterpret the Teaching, if ever. Buddha had warned about misconceptions, misrepresentations and dilution of the Teaching. http://bit.ly/1mUPXVN --- Read Buddha to know about Bhudda and Osho to know about Osho. The rest is a matter of taste; pick the one you like. Its your choice! ---- OR would you consider Wikipedia to be "Bhuddist," because it speaks (well or not) about Buddhism among other things? - That would be a bit strange.

Dear Hugh, I don't think he is Buddhist and I dont read his books, but there is a big connection in the west between him and Buddhism, so I made the question to better understand the reasons. I did not make any claim that he is or not a good Buddhist teacher.

For me he was a "door-opener"; I first loved his hints that it might be meaningful to look at ones own life (and: do that "without judging" - which was new to me as an explicite concept) and to get aware for the individual responsibility for a good path - the existential aspect of this was that what attracted me much. Then I read his books about the zen-patriarchs; very lively, very understandable, mentally reachable for me. When I later met true Buddhists/buddhism it was easy for me to understand much and quickly - and could easily let go "him" and his syncretism and un-buddhistic behave.

Is he considered a great leader?

He isn't.

Does he represents Buddhism?

He doesn't.

Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books?

They aren't.

There's really not much more to say.  Why would you even think Osho was considered a great leader by the Buddhist community? He wasn't even a Buddhist. He lived a luxurious lifestyle and wrote in an eclectic, typically New Age-y way, mixing all kinds of influences and traditions that shouldn't be mixed.

Thanks for the answer, but he is associated with Buddhism in the west (this can be wrong, but it is what it is), his books are sold in Buddhists Centres, so there is a strange connection for some reason between him and Buddhism (he talked a lot about Buddhahood, meditation and enlightment), I agree he does not represent it, but I think the question is valid, to elucidade it

I wonder if those "Buddhist Centres" that propagate  Osho are aware that he was responsible for a terrorist attack ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack )

At least in the Theravada community in Sri Lanka many do not even know who he is. Anyway, he does not have any direct relevance to Buddhism.
Also if you take his teaching, there is some element of "love" and material aspects like his use of Rolls Royces, Expensive Watches and Private Jets which is tied to Raga. This is one of the 5 Hindrances that prevent you from liberation. Also if you go through some of his talks like Osho on Fuck, this does not adhere to the spiritual norms of the Buddhist tradition.

heheheeh I couldn't help but laugh with the title of the last link in your answer

I am uncomfortable with the question because any possible answer is going to be opinion based, and StackExchange in general frowns up on such questions. But then in any philosophy/religion forum several things are obviously going to be opinion based, so if anything the choice of StackExchange as a medium is probably more at fault.

Osho calls himself a Zen master, in fact the word Osho means teacher in Japanese Zen, but he also doesn't fit into any of the usual pigeon holes of Buddhism or even the ones of Zen.
Osho Rajneesh often has some great ideas, but he also draws fantastic conclusions now and then that aren't backed by any logic, data or reason and appear to be self serving. One could make the case that this was an intentional trap for his unwary students, but then everything can be turned upside down in dharma if you try hard enough.
I can't recall specific examples of such missteps since I stopped turning to his ideas a while back, but he's like the Tibetan saying, honey on a razor blade, if you are careful there's honey to be tasted, but if you are careless there's the razor blade.
The sex and money itself isn't a turnoff for me - religion works in many ways, and crazy wisdom has a long tradition of such persons.
Drukpa Kunley the 15th century Mahamudra master wasn't called the "The Saint of 5,000 Women" for nothing, his principal method to enlighten women by having sex with them. So too to a lesser extent with Chogyam Trungpa.

Ultimately it comes down to the student more than the teacher - there are students of the Buddha, like the King Ajatasatru who starved his father to death despite having listened to the Buddha several times, and there are those who get enlightened despite following a fake teacher.
I am sure Osho has helped a few people out of their problems and addictions in his life, in the end we cannot judge others or guess their karma, we can only safeguard our virtues and wisdom.

"Ultimately it comes down to the patient more than the doctor" doesn't help me if I haven't learn medicine and am trying to choose a doctor. :-) The OP might be looking for information to inform is relationship with his grandfather (or his grandfather's relationship with Buddhism). Would you, for example, recommend one of Osho's books in its own right; and/or is it Buddhist, does it represent Buddhism?

As I said it's a mixed bag, he's often very good at explaining things, and equally often very bad or wrong. He'd probably counter that the idea of wrong and right is itself unhelpful. I can't think of a book of his to recommend, but he's not the worst teacher out there either. At least he's intelligent and insightful on occasion.

I didn't see the comment about his grandfather when I wrote the answer, perhaps it was added later. Of course it depends on his grandpa, but I'd probably let grandpas alone to believe what they want to, after a certain age needless confusion isn't healthy. It doesn't matter, no one can prove he's a good or bad teacher. It's like asking is the winter bad because it destroys everything, or is it good because it forces everyone to not be lazy during the summer. Teachers are what we make of them. :)

"Ultimately it comes down to the patient more than the doctor" Meta comment: There's a problem with this analogy - in Western medicine the doctor gives a pill and cures the patient, the patient has to do almost nothing at all. That's not how enlightenment works, though many believe it is exactly like that and spend their lives looking for the perfect guru. A better analogy might be "Ultimately it comes down to the body builder more than the exercise equipment" or "it comes down to the painter than the paint brush"

a voice from someone who actually had read him. I glad this answer exists

he is considered a great leader. an unusual leader.  he represents Buddha not buddhism-which he was always against of. his books are largely accepted as Buddhist books because his style is very poetic and explains the raw ancient hard text in simple languages with jokes...he just want u to be buddha...

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. If you would like to improve your answer you might back it up with some references. On Buddhism SE we also have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

I am glad that people here were considerate while stating their opinions about Osho.
My Story:
I will answer with my little story, the first time I came across the words of Buddha was in school when I learned the four noble truths and the eightfold path in history texts. At that time it seemed so trivial to me as compared to my own religion (Hinduism) that I really never bothered to read it further. Even after I studied a great deal of Physics and Astronomy and Sciences and Engineering and went through terrible life experiences, I didn't really come to understand the importance of Dhamma. I was pondering upon the second law of thermodynamics and by some chance, during that time I listened to Osho's commentary on the Heart Sutra where He mentioned that the reality is never a noun it is always a verb, there is never a River it is always Rivering, that one statement connected so many dots for me and so much of my questions were answered in that single instant. That was the moment that really got me hooked to Buddhism.
From that point onwards I got tremendous insights into Buddhist path and philosophy from Osho.
The next thing was, I had a Hindu upbringing and the idea that the Hindu gods like Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna etc are looking after me and that if I'll worship them they will basically help me provide for all the basic desires that I have. Hindus ordinary practice to please these deities, which are expected to give them the boon. So, anyway, this idea was so deep in the psyche that it was almost impossible to accept Buddha's words on suffering and making enlightenment as a human endeavor and not some heavenly boon. it was again through reading Osho's life and His words, was it possible to sink in my mind, the practicality and existential reality of Buddha's words. I owe my Dhamma journey to Osho in that regards. And this must be true for so many Indians out there, Osho really will be instrumental to bring back Buddhism to India.
Osho's work:

He stressed on becoming a Buddha yourself rather than following any established religions. Which the Buddha would have also stressed that get Enlightened, strive diligently.
Osho stressed highly on meditation, which is really the Buddhist way to become arahant along with other things.
Osho's commentary on Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra, Dhammapada is unparalleled. He is the only contemporary Mystic who has spoken on Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Vajrayana, Buddhist Tantra.
He made his Sannyasins wear maroon robes like the Tibetan Buddhists.
He talked of three marks of existence; impermanence, no self, and dukkha and also attested rebirth.

Is he considered a great leader? an unusual leader? Does he represent Buddhism? Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books?
I have been to a Zen monastery and in the library, there was a section full of His books translated and English.
He is not considered a great leader, but AFAIK He does represent Buddhism for many people I know. His books are not accepted as Buddhist books but His books on Buddhism are used by many to understand some concepts of Buddhism or at least to get acquainted with the idea of Nibbana as a possible human endeavor.

May be after reading The Diamond Sutra: The Buddha Also Said many of the Buddhist's idea about Osho might change.

I don't know what this means. I just googled for some books of Osho and found this introduction for his book on the "diamond sutra": "Written more than 25 centuries ago, the Diamond Sutra is the first text to record the Buddha’s own teachings, and it remains one of the most popular. (...)" Being able to put this into the introduction of the book (what about Palicanon?) I don't think the author (or the merchants) do much care about the historical matters... And carelessness is not something the Buddha favors, especially not if it relates to his words/teachings...

You have judged the book without ever reading it. Or just by reading the description. Whoever has read Osho on Budha would probably have less pre judgemental attitude than the others. And I feel the question "Does Osho represents or relates buddhism" should be more of a subjective question than an objective one.

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


text:
What were Nagarjuna's seminal contributions to Buddhist philosophy?
Nagarjuna's ideas are considered to represent the historical starting point of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Can his ideas be considered a clarification of the philosophy presented in the Pali canon? And if so, what are the specific ideas in Nagarjuna's thought that are important for that clarification? Or, am I completely wrong in my assumption that Nagarjuna actually contributed anything significant to Buddhist thought? (I'm not afraid of criticisms of my pronouncements).

One of Nāgārjuna's main contributions to Buddhist though was the development of the doctrine of sunyata or emptiness. This was a reaction to the development in the doctrines of the Abhidharma by some of the early Buddhist schools (for instance the Sarvastivada). In those schools there developed the concept of things (dharmas) that had some form of independent existence i.e were not subject to dependent origination. I will quote wikipedia on this point

The Madhyamaka school [Nāgārjuna traditionally seen as founding this school] has been perhaps simplistically regarded as a
  reaction against the development of the Abhidharma, especially the
  Sarvāstivādin. In the Abhidharma, dharmas are characterized by
  defining traits (lakṣaṇa) or own-existence (svabhāva), whose
  ontological status is not dependent upon concepts.

Nāgārjuna therefore refuted this and insisted that all things are inherently empty and do not have an independent existence. This means everything not just sentient beings. Nāgārjuna is also linked to the Perfection of Wisdom sutras and the Heart Sutra is particularly good on this point (please note I'm using the translation that we use in the Triratna Buddhist Community - scroll halfway down this document for the full version).

So, in emptiness, no form, No feeling, thought, or choice, Nor is
  there consciousness. No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No colour,
  sound, smell, taste, touch, Or what the mind takes hold of, Nor even
  act of sensing.

So nothing in the psychophysical organism

No ignorance or end of it
  , Nor all that comes of ignorance; No
  withering, no death, No end of them.

Or ignorance or death/withering (so no lakshanas maybe?)

Nor is there pain, or cause of pain, Or cease in pain, or noble path
  To lead from pain; Not even wisdom to attain! Attainment too is
  emptiness.

Or even no four noble truths or eightfold path. So not much left.
So hopefully this giving a flavour of the radical nature of emptiness.
Please note this isn't a complete answer. There are other areas of Nāgārjuna's philosophy that I haven't covered such as the two truths largely due to a complete absence of knowledge on my part.

AFAIK, sarvastidava does not have such dharmas, which are outside of dependent origination.

@catpnosis I got that from andrew skiltons book - a concise history of Buddhism http://windhorsepublications.com/concise_history_of_buddhism on pp 69-70 of my copy. I'm not a Buddhist scholar by any means and this book could be wrong though Andrew Skilton is an academic. My reading could be wrong as well of course

@catpnosis there is also the pudgalavadin school which actually had the 'person' as real in some sense. So again the emptiness doctrine could be seen as reaction to the proposition of metaphysically real elements within Buddhist schools active around that time. Again I'm not the expert


text:
Should a Buddhist pay homage/bend to his parents?
I once heard we should pay homage (bending, prostrating or some similar) to our parents on their birthday. If that is correct, for who else should we pay homage/bend to? Monks and parents only?

From a Therevada perspective, in the Sigalovada Sutta (Pali Canon) the Buddha says to Silaga that parents should be worshiped. He doesn't actually specify monks in this sutra as at this point the Buddhist monastic community wouldn't have taken shape. However he does specify teachers and also ascetics and brahmans so we can maybe take this as the nearest equivalent.
In total he advocates the worship of 6 groups of people corresponding to the 6 directions so

Parents as the East
Teachers as the South
Wife and children as the West
Friends and associates as the North
Servants and employees as the Nadir
Ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith

I have to say though he doesn't restrict the homage to their birthdays only. Sigala is portrayed as doing a daily practice of homage in the six directions to which the Buddha is responding.
From a Mahayana perpective, the Ullambana sutra the Buddha advocates paying homage to parents

Every year, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month

so this would be at least annual homage which is nearer to your question. In addition there is also the Sutra of Filial Piety which goes on at length about the trouble your parents have gone to to raise you (which is fair I guess - they have gone to a lot of effort). This is probably as influenced by Confucianism as much as Buddhism.
There are more of these type of sutras in Mahayana traditions but I'm already past my level of expertise so I'll leave those for other people to detail.

"From a Therevada perspective, in the Sigalovada Sutta (Pali Canon) the Buddha says to Silaga that parents should be worshiped".
Lord Buddha did not say that parents should be worshipped in the Sigalovada Sutta.
What the Lord said was that one should have 'anukampa' for the six categories mentioned. Anukampa may be translated as empathy; it is mutual.
Parents have duties--bringing children up; giving them an education etc.
Children have duties--primarily looking after the parents in their old age, when they are feeble.
'Parents should be worshipped' is a complete misinterpretation of the Sutta. It changes one of the most fundamental concepts of Dhamma--Equality of all beings.
Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta.


text:
Is Satori the same as Enlightenment?
Is the Zen term Satori the same as enlightenment or does it have different nuances or emphasis over what is commonly meant by enlightenment in non-Zen texts. If it is the same then why is used at all. Is its usage just a cultural thing and enlightenment could equally be substituted?

What is "enlightment" (in non-Zen texts,) Crab?

@RobMacHugh hahaha I don't know either. I guess I want to know if the two concepts are the same. I would like to ask the SE community what enlightenment is and find that out - but then wouldn't everyone

Satori ≠ Nibbana

What is bodhi/enlightenment-- tough question. Satori seems to be used to mean like dipping your toes into enlightenment, a temporary burst of insight into how things really are that doesn't last long and usually happens while meditating. I don't have sources at hand though.

afaik, and i could be wrong cos zen is notoriously difficult for neophytes, satori means enlightenment, and can mean anuttara samyak sambodhi, complete enlightenment, but tends not to. see how many monks are still cultivating their enlightenment. kensho is that 1st experience or burst of insight, and can be equivalent to satori, but tends not to be. see how dogen talks about kensho (dismissively) but said to have experienced satori while in china

No, satori is not complete enlightenment, it is an a-ha moment when the practitioner finally realizes "how things are":

Seeing his own original nature, he discovers that the ground of this
  nature is innately free of defilement, and that he himself is
  originally endowed with the non‐outflow wisdom‐nature which is not a
  hair's breadth different from that of all the Buddhas.

From this moment on, one's practice stops being guesswork or imitation and becomes informed by real understanding. In Zen this is known as "sudden awakening, gradual cultivation":

Although he has awakened to the fact that his original nature is no
  different from that of the Buddhas, the beginningless habit‐energies
  are extremely difficult to remove suddenly and so he must continue to
  cultivate while relying on this awakening. Through this gradual
  permeation, his endeavors reach completion. He constantly nurtures the
  sacred embryo, and after a long time he becomes a saint. Hence it is
  called gradual cultivation.  This process can be compared to the
  maturation of a child. From the day of its birth, a baby is endowed
  with all the sense organs just like everyone else, but its strength is
  not yet fully developed. It is only after many months and years that
  it will finally become an adult. (from Secrets on Cultivating the Mind  by Bojo Jinul)

Chogyam Trungpa also speaks about it:

Having received transmission and having had some kind of realization,
  you have to follow it up; you have to become liberated. Some people
  think realization is liberation, but in our case, it is not. When you
  realize something, you have to practice that realization, and then you
  are liberated. So realization does not mean you are liberated; it
  means that you have just touched on the possibility of liberation. Realization is like seeing the first rays of sunshine on the horizon -- you know that the sun is in the sky.

Thank you for the answer. So is satori the same as stream entry in that case. Or maybe a related phenomena

Yes, that is how i see it as well.

i'd say it's less a related phenomena than a similar one

Mahayana Teachers speak of awakening or enlightenment in two meanings:

Awakening as liberation from delusions.
Complete awakening.

The first one is the experience of "seeing the true nature". I think it can be called "liberation" because the illusory nature of delusions is revealed. They still can appear in the mental continuum, but they do not enslave in that absolute way as it was before.
That experience of seeing may be impermanent, because of our deeply rooted habits. It depends. Therefore some people think it's a permanent change (sometimes it happens so), some people think it's a transitory experience that comes and goes. (Usually it is so).
It is the first of Ten Bhumis of Bodhisattva. Probably it's the same as the Stream Entry. Mahayana Teachers say that though it's liberation from delusions, imprints of delusions remain (obstacles to omniscience). They are eliminated in the course of Ten Bhumis, and then there is the complete enlightenment.
PS. So in general "satori" and "kensho" is awakening (in the first sense). However among Buddhist teachers, Zen in particular, there are many people without real understanding of awakening. They read some books or listen to low quality teachers and form various misconceptions. That's why in fact they use terms "satori" and "kensho" where there's no awakening at all.

No use me trying to Answer the Question now. Chang Zhao nailed it.

It seems it is the Japanese translation of the Sanskrit & Pali word "bodhi" meaning awakening or understanding:

Satori (悟り) is
  a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening, "comprehension;
  understanding". It is derived from the verb satoru.
In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of
  kenshō, "seeing into one's true nature". Ken means "seeing," shō means
  "nature" or "essence."
Satori and kenshō are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word
  that is also used to translate bodhi, prajna and buddhahood.
  -Satori (Wikipedia)

Satoru (さとる, サトル) is a Japanese verb meaning "to know" or
  "understand". It is a common masculine Japanese given name. In Zen,
  Satoru is the root to the Zen Buddhist word, Satori (悟り
  enlightenment).
  -Satoru (Wikipedia)

I'm not too familiar with Zen literature so I do not know if the term has any additional nuances (Hence the Wikipedia answer. Maybe someone else can jump-in if the term has further subtleties).
Thank you for the question though. I didn't know this.

Satori is the realization of self for the first time. It is always a sudden phenomena. When satori happens an individual realizes that he is not just mind or body, but more than that.
However due to long rooted habits he tends to loose his consciousness again and again and remains awakened only for a short period of time.
To make this consciousness permanent one has to continuously keep doing meditation.
When this consciousness crystallises permanently the person is called enlightened.

I speak more from personal experience rather than  academic or historical  study.
I see  Nirvana as a  plain of existence... of joy, creativity, eternal and infinite. and from this Plain come lightning bolts that sometimes connect with us. this point of contact can be a satori where one gets a glimpse of nirvana.

plain of  existence... of  joy, creativity,  eternal and infinite.    and  from this Plain come  lightning bolts  that sometimes   connect with  us.    this   point of contact   can  be  a satori   where   one gets   a glimpse of nirvana.

if its not permanent, it aint enlightnment.


text:
Controlling your own volitions?
I've come across a contradiction in my practice. In truth you have no control of the mind, things arise and cease based on extremely subtle influences by defilemets at the roots. Yet the dammapada says to be the master and control your mind/volitions.
I've also asked this on radio.sirimangalo site but not sure which you use for monk radio now.

This sounds like question about freedom of will. Are you asking if we have freedom of will?

As my teacher explained, whether we do or do not have freewill, when we drive the car, we must drive it well. Similarly, regardless of whether meditation is happening by itself, or "I" do it, it must be right meditation.
Practically speaking, we can control our mind, we can choose whether to get angry or to let go, whether to break through our phobias or to give in, whether to tolerate pain or to give up. This is our choice.
Similarly, we do have a choice of perspective: we can think we are sentient beings, having been born and destined to die, or we can generate the mind of nirvana. You always have choice, period.
Buddha was a huge opponent of the no-free-will-type theories with their tendency to take away motivation to strive for Enlightenment.
Now surely meditation is not about rigid control either. It's not about letting your mind run loose, nor is it about following an algorithm.
Enlightenment involves losing the form, true, but it also involves developing tremendous will power. These are the two legs we walk on the path.

If you want to strengthen a muscle, you need to know where it is and what it moves if you're going to understand the exercises that target it. Only then can you perform them efficiently. In the same way, you have to understand the anatomy of the mind's suffering if you want to understand how meditation is supposed to work. You'll find, for instance, that the Buddha explained how ignorance shapes the way you breathe, and how that in turn can add to your suffering.
Meditation is the most useful skill you can master. It can bring the mind to the end of suffering, something no other skill can do. But it's also the most subtle and demanding skill there is. It requires all the mental qualities ordinarily involved in mastering a physical skill — mindfulness and alertness, persistence and patience, discipline and ingenuity — but to an extraordinary degree. This is why, when you come to meditation, it's good to reflect on any skills, crafts, or disciplines you've already mastered so that you can apply the lessons they've taught you to the training of the mind.

Hope this helps. It is an extract from Thanissaro Bhikkhu


text:
Sūkarakhata sutta and the "arahants seeking benefits they already have"
I stumbled across this sutta yesterday (SN 48.58) with a dialogue between the Buddha and Sariputta, which has the following passage:

Considering what benefit, Sariputta, does a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conduct himself in a way that shows supreme honor towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching?
It is, venerable sir, considering as benefit the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching.

So far, the question and answer seem a little curious. In the edition I have by Bhikku Bodhi, he added a note pointing out this was puzzling. But there is more. It continues:

And what, Sariputta, is the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed considers as the benefit when he conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching?
Here, venerable sir, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed develops the faculty of faith, which leads to peace, leads to enlightenment. He develops the faculty of energy [...]
Good, good, Saripputa. [...]

Now, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is, as far as I know, an arahant. Also, even if I were to doubt Bhikku Bodhi's translation, skimming through the pali version (with a dictionary, my pali knowledge is 0) indicated they are not talking about an ordinary bhikkhu ("who has work to be done"), but an arahant -- a khīṇāsavo bhikkhu.
I tried googling for discussions around this text with no success.
So my question is: Are there any clues that shed light into this confusion? The confusion of the Buddha approving Saripputa words (and that Saripputa himself would say them, though its not clear if he was already an Arahant himself at the time), which imply that an Arahant still seeks a state of being, devoted to the development of faculties and to reap assiciated benefits.
While on a practical side this mostly concerns arahants (ie. if I'm to clear my doubts, I better become one), I'm also curious to know other (possibly notable) suttas that present problems (inconsistencies, etc).

www.palikanon.com has a clearer translation.

The Buddha questions Sāriputta at Sūkarakhatalena as to why a monk who
  has destroyed the āsavas should revere the Buddha and his teachings.
  Sāriputta answers that it is because such a monk has secured freedom
  from the yoke. "What kind of security is it?" asks the Buddha, and
  Sāriputta explains that it is security obtained by the cultivation of
  the five indriyas of faith, energy, etc. S.v.233f.

An Arahant reveres the Buddha and his teaching not because he/she has anything left to attain, but because the Buddha and the Dhamma are what led him/her to Nibbana. The faculty of faith peaks out when a being attains Arahantship. The closer you get to Nibbana, the more respect and appreciation you will have for the Buddha and his teachings.
Incidentally, venerable Sariputta attained Arahantship by listening to the Dīghanakha (or Vedanāpariggaha) Sutta at the Sūkarakhata cave.

This description does make much more sense. I'm still looking for different translations to have a better understanding of the text itself, since the fact that Bodhi himself was puzzled indicates that it wasn't an accidental translation or interpretation, but that he saw that meaning in the pali words.


text:
Why do Buddhists have children?
In Buddhism they teach that life is suffering, that it's all about pain (which is true) and that you should try your best to achieve Nirvana and become someone who won't have any more rebirths. This is something that I've learnt since I was young. So I was wondering, if parents love their child, why do they decide to have a child? I mean Buddhist parents. Now think about it. If parents know life is about suffering and pain and it's not the best thing why would they want it for their child? I mean seriously, if they really love their child and they are pure Buddhists, according to Buddhism they should not feel the need to have a child because that will cause the child to experience all the pains, etc. So as a mother or father, who wants their child to be in pain? I just don't understand, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm a Theravada Buddhist.

Yes, duplicated question

x Nova I think the question is very good but please refer to the other one that has more answers.

A couple deciding not to have children does not prevent any being from being born again.

I'm not sure this really is a duplicate question. The core of this question is "why have children if life is pain", the core of the other question is "can we stop the cycle of rebirth by not having children"

Well said @THelper , you understood this :)

@xNova Would you mind if I edited your question a bit to see if we can get it reopened?

I think you mix up pain with suffering.
Pain is something that happens. Suffering you do to yourself, a second arrow
And from what I understand Buddhists view being born human to be lucky, as you get the chance to have influence on your own fate. You can get the chance to hear about and perhaps understand the Four Noble Truths and start following the Eightfold Path that leads to an end of suffering (but not pain(1)). And perhaps even an escape to the cycle of rebirth.
So Buddhists don't really have a reason to not have children.
(1)Be happy, you have done the first steps.

Yes buddhists view being born as a human lucky when compared to be born as other animals. But I believe buddhism prefers not being born in the first place.

Its only compared to other beings, but buddhism believes that not being born in the first place , but if born then obviously being a human is considered way better than any other creature...re-read my question please :)


text:
Is it possible for active people to truly live practice "mindfulness"?
Several buddhist/meditation books recommend me to practice "Mindfulness" or living in the present moment alone.
I am a married man with a 4 yr old son and wife.I am currently working in one of the top 10 IT company in the world.
On any given time I will have a "list of things to do" which are important and which are pending from my side.
So if I ignore my tasks and "live only in the present moment" it will greatly harm me and my family's life.
Also how am I supposed to be at peace when all the pending items keep reminding me that they are not yet completed even if I try to calm myself for couple of minutes.
Does this mean that people with lot of responsibilities should refrain from practicing "mindfulness" ?

Mindfulness or living in the present moment is not the same as not having goals or responsibilities. Instead it is about doing everything you do with full attention and without judgement.
For example, an active and not very mindful person would drive a car, look at his watch to see what time it is, and nervously think about everything he still has to do today, all three at the same time. A mindful person would drive the car with full attention. When other thoughts pop-up he would accept it and let them just pass by without giving them too much attention. Only when he has arrived at his destination would he actively think about his next activity.
This means that you still can have goals, it's just that you are not (in your mind) busy trying to achieve multiple goals at the same time. Additionally, being mindful also means that you accept whatever happens without judgement. If you accidentally hit another car while driving, you (try to) don't get angry or upset, but instead accept and deal with the consequences of the accident.

From my perspective mindfulness it isn't as easy as just deciding to be mindful much in the same way as meditation isn't as easy as just calming the mind. There is something very tangible that doesn't want to be mindful. Something that likes the chaos and chatter of an unguarded mind. There is some part of us i think that wants to be distracted, to not be here with whatever this is.
For instance my life is probably quite similar to OP's life in some ways. I have a 4 your old daughter. I hold down a job in an IT company that can sometimes be stressful and maybe even overwhelming. I lead a busy life. I do try to practice mindfulness in the everyday as I believe it is a powerful practice. It's a practice I also find difficult. Here is just some areas I have tried (and often failed) to apply a bit more mindfulness

When walking from place to place I try not to habitually put headphones in. As fascinating as the latest podcast is - it isn't the here and now.
When waiting for a train I try not to flick idly through the free paper. Just stand on the platform and if I'm thinking then fine. And if I'm not thinking of anything then even better
When coming how late from work and no-one is around the temptation is almost overwhelming to put the TV on and slump in front of it. I really try (and often fail) to just eat and know that I am eating.

Everyday mindfulness is a fascinating thing. It fascinates me how often I run away from what is actually happening and why I habitually do it.
That said this answer is borne purely out of my own experience. It perfectly possible that everyone else finds mindfulness stunningly easy. I suspect not though - my difficulties might be on the edge of a spectrum but I'm sure I'm not unique.
Good luck with the practice should you decide to take it up.

Activities and other people in life demand attention and energy. One may not always be present during periods of exertion. Yet, one will always be in the present whether or not they are conscious of that fact. "Time is an illusion" was an especially favorite phrase I picked up from Eckhart Tolle's book, The Power Of Now. Clock time is very important and is what we measure our progression against. This should not be mistaken to be real, however. All that has been, is, and will ever be is Now.
Reference:
Tolle, Eckhart (2004) The Power Of Now. New World Library; 1ST edition.

I like the book of Sister Chan Kong, "Learning true love" (I've only the german version "Aus Liebe zu allen Wesen"). It is a biographical report about her time in Vietnam and the war-time, when she got in contact with the buddhistic dhamma and buddhistic practice (in contact with the vietnamese monk, the venerable Thich Nhat Hanh). It is, I think, a most impressing example how one can be mindful and still in action for peace, compassion, mutual understanding, de-escalation and social work.