text:
Trust and Compassion
How can I trust someone who lies, manipulates and hurts people?
I know a person who manipulates people and I know I can not trust him but recently, the mother of that person has health problems, and my group of friends want to integrate him. I do not agree and now I have the impression of lacking compassion.
What should I do? Should I be more compassionate?

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

Does this question assume that "trust" and "compassion" are the same thing, or that they're connected somehow? Do you not suppose that you can be compassionate, without being trusting? Or is "compassionate" not quite the right word and you mean something else, for example "generous"? What does "integrate" him into a group mean? Lastly can you add a hint about how this question is related to Buddhism? I fear there's not enough detail in the question to reply except with a too-general answer.

A person who has these tendencies is suffering greatly. He is causing great harm to himself and other beings by acting on the unwholesome roots of greed, anger and delusion.
It does not really matter if you trust him or not. There is still the possibility that he could use or betray you. One cannot control reality. One is just given a hand of cards. It's up to oneself to find out how to play that hand in the most beneficial and wholesome way.
Let's look at both scenarios.

You place your trust in him and he betrays you or uses you.

All he can do is to impinge on your sense-faculties. Anger can arise, sadness or other negative mind states can arise in you. That is really it. Noone can force you to react to these states of mind.
If you instead just observe them with mindfulness in the present moment then you can use these phenomena to cultivate insight. You can use them as a stepping stone to progress in your path.

You place you trust in him and he does not use or betray you.

This scenario is better for him since he does not create unwholesome kamma for himself since he is not doing those unwholesome actions.
For you it's pretty much the same. If happiness arises in you because of that you can enjoy that happiness without being attached to it. As long as you know it is impermanent and unsatisfactory you can enjoy it without dwelling in it. In the same way you can contemplate the conditioned happiness and see the danger in it if one gets attached to it. Conditioned happiness is dukkha in disguise because when it's exhausted it will leave behind a void leaving one wanting for more. That is if one is attached to the happiness. If not you can again use it for the cultivation of insights.
If you contemplate the situation you might find compassion for him. Why? Because he is dealing with the same "illness" that we are all dealing with, i.e. ignorance of the true nature of reality. We are all in the same boat here. Some beings minds are just clouded in a heavier darkness than others. When thinking about these beings naturally a deep compassion can arise.
We are all in this together. As long as we not enlightened we are all dealing with some level of ignorance meaning that we have a mind that is not fully trained to see reality clearly. Only the Buddhas and Arahants are fully awake.
By knowing that we are all in the same boat we can begin to view the situation in a different way.
I do not know if you are training in meditation at the moment but if you do and if you are practicing insight meditation (vipassana meditation) you will come to experience these things for yourself. By seeing this directly through observation of reality compassion can arise in you.
Buddhist ethics is centered on intentions / volitions. When acting according to the Noble Eightfold Path one should cultivate Right Intention (Samma Sankappa), i.e. intentions of renunciation, good will and harmlessness.
It is not your job to fix him or other people. By working on ourselves and purifying ourselves from defilements we can be good examples for other beings. Naturally people want to be around a person that is honest, wise, calm and peaceful.

Being compassionate doesn't mean that you have to trust him or agree with what he is doing. Compassion (Karuna in Pali/Sanskrit) is defined as the wish that being be free from suffering.
If you see someone doing things that hurt other people, being compassionate in effect means that you want them to be free of the suffering they are undergoing. You don't have to trust them or let them walk all over you to be compassionate, so if you do let him join your circle of friends, you don't have to mistreat you or anyone else.
In fact, letting him mistreat others is actually the opposite of being compassionate because then they are only hurting themselves more. You need to be skillful in figuring out how to respond though. If you think that bringing it up to them would cause them to get defensive and just shut you out, then that would be a bad idea, but if you think you can get through to them in a way that won't cause more harm than good, then you should do that.

If one is truly giving, then there is no expectation of a response.  Not thankfulness, not appreciation, not acknowledgement, not response in kind.  The word "trust" invokes the sense that there is an expectation of some kind of reciprocity from the receiver of your giving.
Compassion is a form of giving.  In its true form it is not transactional. When one gives of oneself in some way, it is not for the benefit of the other, it is for the benefit of you.  When you give, what does it matter whether it is to a manipulative or "taking" person? The benefit accrues to you regardless.
The disingenuous person will perhaps require a long string of interactions before the epiphanous one that changes that person presents itself.

Nice answer. Welcome to Buddhism.SE!


text:
Does the saṅkhatalakkhaṇa of dukkha apply to the noble path?
Dukkha is usually clarified as an intrinsic characteristic of everything conditioned and to be as such a direct derivative of the characteristic of impermanence.
Does this also apply to the noble path(s)?
There is a discussion about that in the kathāvatthu (17.5), but that could not clarify it (at least for me).
Best wishes.
(I'm also bearing in mind, that the paths are classified as being anāsava. Would that imply that an anāsava-dhamma is not impermanent, suffering, not-self?)
P.S. In the cūḷavedallasutta, MN 44, it is stated explicitly that the noble eightfold path is conditioned:

[...] “Ariyo panāyye, aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo saṅkhato udāhu asaṅkhato”ti?
“Ariyo kho, āvuso visākha, aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo saṅkhato”ti. [...]
[...] “But is the eightfold Noble Path, Noble Lady, conditioned or
  unconditioned?” “The eightfold Noble Path, friend Visākha, is
  conditioned.” [...]

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

As an answer, the raft parable comes to mind.

Theravada recognizes only nibbāna as unconditioned -- thus, not dukkha.
Other schools have disagreed on what is unconditioned:

In the Sarvāstivādin tradition since the compilation of the Dharmaskhanda, three unconditioned dharmas have been recognized: analytical cessation (pratisankhayā-nirodha), nonanalytical cessation (apratisankhayā-nirodha) and space (ākāśa). In the Theravada tradition, only one unconditioned dharma, nirvana, is recognized (Dhammasanghani p.244), a position also maintained in the Agamas and by the Vātsīputrīya school. According to the Samaya, the Mahāsanghika, Ekavyavahārika, Lokottaravādin, and Kaukutica schools all recognized the following nine unconditioned dharmas: (1) analytical cessation (2) nonanalytical cessation (3) space (4) the realm of infinity of space (5) the realm of infinity of consciousness (6) the realm of nothingness (7) the realm of neither consciousness nor unconsciousness (8) the law of dependent origination (9) the law of the noble path [...]. The Mahīsāsaka school also recognized nine unconditioned dharmas; but its list differed somewhat from that of the Mahāsanghika school and included such items as immovability, the eternal law of good dharma, the eternal law of bad dharma, the eternal law of indeterminate dharma, the eternal law of the path, and the eternal law of Dependent Origination. The law of Dependent Origination was included in the list of unconditioned dharmas because it was regarded as an unchanging principle. The Sarvāstivādins disagreed with this position and did not recognize the existence of a principle of Dependend Origination separate from conditioned dharmas. For the Sarvāstivādins, the law of Dependend Origination itself was conditioned.
For the Mahaśiśākas, the path to nirvana was recognized as an unconditioned dharma because the practices established by the Buddha were considered to be eternal truths. The Sarvāstivādins opposed this position by maintaining that although nirvana was unconditioned, the wisdom the Buddha had realized was conditioned and not eternal.
-- A history of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana

from description of Sariputta's attainments given by the Buddha himself, Ven Sariputta used Sati as vehicle to enter (tho entering is not quite correct term to use, but for clarification purpose only) cessation from neither perception nor non-perception. At cessation, sati ceases to exist (sati is part of name-form-and 7th of noble paths), therefore,  sati is Dukkha.  at cessation or Saññā Vedayita Nirodha all 8 noble paths cease , as does name-form.  noble paths are pratityasamutpana dhamma.  ven. sariputta continued to enter cessation in and out several times, to see the rise and fall of name-form.  wisdom or vimutti-yanatasana does not occure while one is in neither perception nor non perception or cessation state.

In MN 24, "The Relay Chariots" sutta, the Supramundane Path is the last stage of the Seven Stages of Purification. While being the highest, it's still 1 of the 7 "Relay chariots" used to reach the final destination which Nibbana the unconditioned. Since it's not the destination itself, it's still conditioned dhamma.

I found an explicit statement in the Visuddhimagga (XVI.566):

[...] atthi cettha dukkhaṃ na ariyasaccaṃ, [...] tattha maggasampayuttā dhammā sāmaññaphalāni ca “yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhan”ti (saṃ. ni. 3.15) vacanato saṅkhāradukkhatāya dukkhaṃ, na ariyasaccaṃ[...]
(transl. Bhante Ñāṇamoli:)
... (a) there is suffering that is not noble truth...
"89. Herein, (a) though states associated with the path and the fruits of asceticism are suffering since they are suffering due to to formations (see § 35) because of the words, "What is impermanent is painful" (S II 53; III 22), still they are not the noble truth [of suffering]..."

thanks for your help!
All the best.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are good deeds superficial?
It's said that our actions are originated from unconscious mind. People are trying to become more patient, more tolerable, etc. but there are anger type of people, lustful type of people, etc.. Once the circumstances change, people also change according to their nature.
So can we change our 'true nature' by just doing good deeds? Or good deeds have to come from our true nature? Thanks all.

Doing good deeds is very beneficial because our moral character is changeable. When we do good deeds, our moral character improves. When we do bad deeds, our character worsens.
However, according to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination, the ultimate cause of all our negative qualities is much deeper than that. This underlying root cause is ignorance, so the only way to permanently change is to overcome ignorance. To do good deeds without overcoming ignorance is very good, but it isn't enough to become enlightened.
To overcome ignorance, one must develop wisdom by developing insight into the nature of reality. Once this wisdom is attained and brought to perfection, the ignorance that is the underlying cause of all suffering is brought to an end.

Our character is changing based on the conditioning.
But does it really change the unconscious, the true nature of the person?
To overcome ignorance is to overcome both good deeds and bad deeds. If one’s nature is bad, for example, what is the quality of his good deeds compare to good deeds done by a person with good/ wholesome nature?

@Steve you're assuming that there is some fixed self / underlying nature. Why do you assume that people are either inherently good or inherently bad?

@SamurdhaJayasinghe Please read my post. There are different types of people. So does a good deed done by a person with unwholesome nature/ tendency same as a good deed done by a person with wholesome nature?

The three very basic aspects of any existence are:

Impermanence
Suffering
Non-Self

So the 'true nature' is also subject to these aspects. It is also impermanent and hence can change for good or bad.
It is important that one must realize these 3 aspects within oneself and not just understand them at a superficial mental level, the level of 'chintanmayi pradnya' - the one obtained by thinking, analyzing and pondering. These 3 aspects must be realized at the level of experience, the level of 'bhavanamayi pradnya' - experiential wisdom, which is gained through meditation.
Assuming one needs to change the 'true nature' for good, i.e. become less agitated, less lustful etc. Any true change can only come about when we change the way our unconscious mind works. This is only possible when we have access to the unconscious mind. For that one needs 'concentration'. But concentration is antithetical to an agitated mind, to a lustful mind. Hence to gain concentration, one needs to practice 'morality' - one must try to keep the five precepts in daily life. One must try to do good deeds. With morality and concentration, one is able to develop 'wisdom' - which will take us to final liberation.
So you ask, 'So can we change our 'true nature' by just doing good deeds? Or good deeds have to come from our true nature?' Initially one must start by doing good deeds, keeping precepts. But one must graduate to meditation (start by going to a meditation retreat) to develop concentration and wisdom, so that every deed we perform is beneficial for us and others.

Good deeds help to develop and maintain wholesome mind states which is a very important part of Right Effort and can lead all the way to the stage of stream entry.
A great in depth resource for understanding the benefit of our good deeds to ourselves is Merit: A Study Guide by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. From the intro:

Of all the concepts central to Buddhism, merit (puñña) is one of the least known and least appreciated in the West. This is perhaps because the pursuit of merit seems to be a lowly practice, focused on getting and "selfing," whereas higher Buddhist practice focuses on letting go, particularly of any sense of self. Because we in the West often feel pressed for time, we don't want to waste our time on lowly practices, and instead want to go straight to the higher levels. Yet the Buddha repeatedly warns that the higher levels cannot be practiced in a stable manner unless they develop on a strong foundation. The pursuit of merit provides that foundation. To paraphrase a modern Buddhist psychologist, one cannot wisely let go of one's sense of self until one has developed a wise sense of self. The pursuit of merit is the Buddhist way to develop a wise sense of self.

and

The section on merit then sets out in general terms the types of meritorious activities that conduce to that happiness, focusing primarily on three: giving, virtue, and meditation.

and

All three of these forms of merit conduce to the highest form of merit: the realization of stream-entry, the first glimpse of the deathless. Thus the penultimate section of this study guide focuses on the happiness and well-being that derive from this attainment.

There is definitely an understanding that keeping your mind on doing good deeds is beneficial and important and can lead to the attainment of Sotāpanna; which is not a superficial change.

I am going to give you an answer from an Abhidhamma perspective.
What happens to us arises because of kamma and many other conditions.
There is no “decider” to determine the reaction (wholesome or unwholesome) to what happens, but a decision is made naturally (without a “decider”). The decision is a natural result of defilements / accumulations / habits / pārami / vows / tendencies / the environment / your mood / recent events. The mechanism by which the decision is made is called “natural decisive support condition” (pakatūpanissayapaccaya).
The intensity of the volition associated with the reaction (and therefore the weightiness of the kamma produced) and the intensity of the other mental factors (how strong the attachment, the amount of compassion, etc.) is also determined by “natural decisive support condition”.
I know that “natural decisive support condition” sounds like a healthcare product :-), but it is a very important concept at the heart of the strategy to spiritual development. The cause (conditioning state) of “natural decisive support condition” is something “strong” that happened in the past (mental state, sensed object or idea). The result (conditioned state) of “natural decisive support condition” is the current mental state (all mental states).
So when good things are done repeatedly, this creates a “strong” past conditioning state (strong because of repetition) that will naturally influence future decisions and the weightiness of the future kamma produced. This is why we undertake “rules of training” (precepts). This is why the Buddha talked of “training” monks (see MN 107). The mind cannot be controlled, but it can be trained. One should approach spiritual development with a training paradigm, not a control paradigm.
Training the mind is like any type of training. It is not a “control" paradigm, it is a “working with" approach. The mind is like a little puppy dog, it cannot be controlled but it can be trained. It requires patience, repetition, patience, energy, patience, commitment, patience and consistency. It also takes a lot of patience!
So to answer your specific question... wholesome deeds performed in the past condition present wholesome deeds through “natural decisive support condition”. Unwholesome deeds performed in the past condition present unwholesome deeds through “natural decisive support condition”.

Someone should trademark "natural decisive support condition"

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


text:
What is the relation between Pratītyasamutpāda and Four Noble truths?
First two truths are relate to "samsara". But how 3rd and 4th truths relate to Pratītyasamutpāda?

If we divide Pratītyasamutpāda to three existences it's much easier to explain. (this can be explained for each moment as well)

First existence
   1. Ignorance
   2. Formations
Second existence
   3. Consciousness  4. Nāma-rūpa   5. The six senses   6. Touch    7. Sensation
   8. Craving
   9. Clinging
  10. Becoming
Third existence
   11. Birth
   12. Old age and death

If we take second existence as the current life, points 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (consciousness,  nāma-rūpa,  the six senses,  touch and sensation) are another form or representation of the five aggregates which is same as suffering or the first noble truth.
If you crave for the sensations (nourished by ignorance) in this existence, then this will form your next life. Although craving, clinging, becoming, ignorance and formations in this life are all causes for the next life, craving is the main culprit, hence craving becomes the second noble truth.
If craving is ceased in this very life, there won't be another existence,that means you've overcome the suffering, this can be achieved and has been achieved, hence this becomes the third noble truth.
To realise this, you have to follow the eightfold path, which is the fourth noble truth. However, Pratītyasamutpāda doesn't straight away relate to the fourth noble truth as the other three here.

The teaching of Dependent Origination is part of what is known as the Middle Teaching (majjhena-dhammadesana). It is taught as an impersonal, natural truth, a description of the nature of things as they are, avoiding the extreme theories or biased views that human beings are want to fall into as a result of their distorted perceptions of the world and their attachments and desires within it. The cycle of Dependent Origination which describes the problem of human suffering comes in two limbs: the first limb, called the samudayavara (origination mode), is a description of the arising of suffering, corresponding with the second Noble Truth, the cause of suffering; the second limb, called the nirodhavara (cessation mode), is a description of the cessation of suffering, corresponding with the third Noble Truth.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.htm#C9

The 3rd and 4th truths do not relate to Pratītyasamutpāda. Instead, the relate to Pratītyanirodha. In  other words, the 3rd and 4th truths end/destroy Pratītyasamutpāda.
Pratītyasamutpāda is the 2nd noble truth explained with more detail (quoted below).
When the Buddha gave the 1st sermon on the 4 noble truths, this was simply an introductory or beginners teaching & not the Dhamma in full.
In summary, there is no difference between the 4 noble truths & Pratītyasamutpāda/Nirodha, apart from the 4 noble truth is a short version & Pratītyasamutpāda/Nirodha is a long version.

"And what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is
stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
despair are stressful; association with what is not loved is
stressful, separation from what is loved is stressful, not getting
what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates
are stressful. This is called the noble truth of stress.
"And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress?
"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From
fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From
consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From
name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From
the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From
contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite
condition comes clinging. From clinging as a
requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite
condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then old
age & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into
play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress &
suffering.
AN 3.61


text:
(Radical) pacifism and governmental force (army, police, etc.)
Reading some comments on this subsite I ended up a couple of days ago reading this secular article on the topic of self defence in Buddhism and this question on the site here. Now, based on this I seem to have deduced that there are three positions:

Egocentric pacifism: You may hurt and maybe even kill others if it is to defend yourself, provided it's not out of hatred or similar emotions. E.g. stopping an intruder forcefully is fine.
Radical pacifism: You may not hurt others, even if you're "being rendered limb from limb".
Utilitarianism: You may hurt and maybe even kill others if it's for the greater good and not out of hatred or similar emotions.

Now, historically I only know of a few groups that practiced radical pacifism, and one of the most famous groups (the anabaptists/Mennonites) concluded that it was impossible for a Christian to be a worldly ruler (ignoring the radical anabaptists and the mess in Münster).
This got me wondering:

In countries like Cambodia (97% Buddhists) and Thailand (93% Buddhists) does radical pacifism have any consequences at all at the government level?
Or is (radical) pacifism just an insignificant minority position in Buddhism?

In other words, what I am mostly just asking is how Buddhism approaches issues of the power of governments to wield a mighty sword (army, police) versus the pacifism that is often taught by Buddhists.

PS. Yeah, I am not a buddhist, but yes, I am fascinated in general with people who live as radical pacifists (and accept the consequences). I have tried to word my question in a sensible way, but if my lack of knowledge of Buddhism caused any faults in my question, I will greatly appreciate any and all edits and will try better next time.

One phrase that could be slightly faulty in the question is the definition, "you may not hurt others even if etc." -- maybe consider instead, "you have no desire to hurt others".

@ChrisW Just checking, but you do realize that that was quoted from Crab Bucket's linked answer? Or do you just in general mean the part of rules vs desires?

I meant that "Because I am being hurt I want to hurt others, however there is a rule which says that 'I may not'" could be a naive way for an individual to be, and not imo a really good definition of pacifism or Buddhism. When I said that could be "faulty" that was a quote from your comment, but maybe it's like a fault in a diamond: i.e. if you hit the question there then it slightly falls to pieces. But that was FYI, I'm not saying that the question is unanswerable (answerable by someone else who might know more about Cambodia or Thailand or other modern countries than I do).

@ChrisW Ah, I do see what you mean :) . Still though, isn't there a big difference between not having the desire to hurt others and the intention of actually not hurting others? After all, in the first case it's perfectly fine to carelessly chop someones head of when you aren't diligent before chopping wood. Or alternatively hurting someone because you feel you have to (which would not be okay in radical pacifism). As in, the reason I am asking that is purely because I was thinking how I could improve my wording and 'no desire to hurt others' was your suggestion.

@ChrisW As I don't have the necessary reputation I couldn't see the comment you wrote before deleting your answer. Just wanted to say I was thankful for the time you took to write it! I didn't mean my comment as an attack, but I was just having a hard time seeing how you meant that answer as an answer.

I couldn't see the comment you wrote Yes, sorry, my comment was just,"You say this isn't an answer to the question, which is reasonable. I'll delete it therefore." I was just having a hard time seeing how you meant that answer as an answer Well I had started by Googling to see about Bhutan as an example, and found that Bhutan had exiled some Nepalese people. I suppose my answer (or conclusion) ended up being similar to CrabBucket's, but I took mine from a history of specific countries whereas CrabBucket's was maybe taken from "political philosophy".

I think this would take a political scientist to answer but I'll try to give a few thoughts on this.
I listened to a podcast a while ago where Owen Flanagan was arguing that Buddhism was ill suited to form part of any political philosophy. Whereas a country may be Buddhist from a democratic perspective when it comes to the political sphere that country will operate with a different political philosophy such as monarchy, oligarchy etc... So whether a Buddhist does or doesn't subscribe to radical pacifism would be irrelevant in Buddhist countries as the political philosophy isn't actual based on Buddhism. I'm not agreeing or diagreeing with this - my knowledge of global political structures isn't strong enough to support that stance. However it was an interesting assertion and relevant here I think.
Also for many people the Dalai Lama is the Buddhist political leader that they are most familiar with and his attitude to political force is complex. For instance he has given messages of support to the armed forces - while that not directly advocating violence it isn't radical pacifism either.
In short although I do think that radical pacifism is a valid Buddhist position I don't believe it is a position that political figures hold whether in Buddhist countries or being Buddhist themselves. Very happy to be proved wrong on this of course.

To summarize, the question was, "In real/specific countries today, does radical pacifism have any consequences at all at the government level? Or is it an insignificant minority position in Buddhism?" -- I think you're answering that it doesn't have consequences at the governmental level.

@ChrisW that's a fair summary of my position. Well the position I'm putting forward until someone that knows better posts.

I am trying to comprehend this: Are you saying that people set aside their believes then when they vote? As in, that the political philosophy comes first during the vote and that private believes are contained as pertaining only to a persons private life? And oh wow@that article about the Dalai Lama.

Nations with Buddhism as a major religion are seldom pacifist. Take for example: Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Japan, Nepal, or China. None of these governments practice pacifism now, nor to my known have they ever in the past. Some of them are now run by military dictatorships and are characterised by authoritarian regimes which treat their people harshly.
Some smaller countries like Bhutan are quite peaceful in the sense of not being involved in wars, but Bhutan is currently persecuting Nepalese migrants, who themselves fled civil war in Nepal. The history of Buddhist Tibet is quite bloody at government level, despite the current pacifism of their leader in exile the Dalai lama.
I would say that if radical pacifism exists it is at the level of individuals and never at the level of governments. Where Buddhist monastics have engaged in politics, as they are in Tibet and Sri Lanka currently, it has tended to corrupt them.
In your comment above you question whether people vote against their conscience. Another feature of Buddhist countries is totalitarianism. Very few Buddhists have had the possibility of voting in the past. In the countries that are democratic no pacifist party has ever won power so far as I know. But if they did it is likely, until very recently, that a neighbouring country would simply invade and conquer them and replace the pacifist govt.
A nation state is an entity created and sustained by violence or at the very least the threat of it. So in a sense the idea of a pacifist nation state it a contradiction in terms. One of the few examples of this comes not from Buddhism, but from the state within a state that is the Amish community in the USA. Again, not a democracy but a religious oligarchy (a hierarchy in the true sense of the word). Ironically the right to freedom of religion that many of us enjoy was won, and is sustained, by the threat of violence against those would would deny the right. And again in history most Buddhist countries did not have freedom of religion.
It is a rather complex question, and history is full of counterexamples, but I think this broad overview covers the facts.

I agree that a (radical) pacifist nation can not exist, but it's... interesting to note that everybody agrees that the believes of the people are that strongly unreflected in the government. Then again, I am still not sure how strongly pacifistic believes are spread in those population.

Since your question arose after reading the article, I guess it is essential to point out some misrepresentations in it.
First of all, the premise of this secular article is entirely false. Asaram Bapu is a Hindu self-styled Godman, who himself is jailed on charges of child molestation. The details of his case can be accessed here Asaram Child Abuse.  Second, the idea that, and I am paraphrasing the author, Indians are joining similar violence prevention courses over the advice of religious opponents who echo Buddha, is entirely author's misconstrued imagination with no basis in reality. Buddha never figured in the contemporary discussion on sexual abuse in India post the December 2012 gangrape.
Third, the Buddhist society in general can be divided in 4 different categories:
a. Bhikkhu (Male Monks)
b. Bhikkhuni (Female Monks)
c. Upasak (Lay Male Follower)
d. Upasika (Lay Female Follower)
The 'Kakacupama Sutta' mentioned in the article is addressed to the monks who have renounced lay life and are determined and dedicated to the path of enlightenment. Its quotation is out of context.
It is important to note that Buddha never discouraged Kings (Govts in the modern context) from keeping a standing army. In fact, he even gave advice to the Licchavis on how to well defend their republic.
A detailed explanation of the role of King and the Soldier in the society and their importance is given here: Role of the Soldier with proper references of the relevant Suttas.
From the above link, it is quite clear that the idea of Radical Pacifism as 'You may not hurt others, even if you're "being rendered limb from limb".' is not what Buddha taught in the context of Kings and Soldiers. This was a teaching given to monks.
This might be a little off-topic but it is important to understand that in Buddhism, a lot of emphasis is put on meditation. The Dhamma says 'Ehipassiko' - i.e. come and see for yourself. So, on a personal level, if a soldier comes to realize the effects of his livelihood on the experiential level, he is welcome to become a monk. But while being a soldier, if he is practicing the teachings of monks, then he is harming himself and he will harm the nation. Buddha gave the Noble Eightfold Path to come out of suffering.
Now coming to:
'•In countries like Cambodia (97% Buddhists) and Thailand (93% Buddhists) does radical pacifism have any consequences at all at the government level?
•Or is (radical) pacifism just an insignificant minority position in Buddhism?
'
Now, since, Buddha never taught Radical Pacifism to Kings and Soldiers, I think the question is a non-issue. Also, even if the majority of population is Buddhist doesn't mean the state is Buddhist. In Cambodia, during the Cambodian Genocide, religion was banned and there was repression of even the Buddhists. Even during the rule of Mao in China, religion was heavily repressed. Japan had a pacifist constitution for a while before Abe but that was inspired by the second world war. I think a better question would be impact of Buddhism on general governance in different countries.

I deleted a previous answer of mine after the OP commended on it that, "Either way, I was asking what consequences the believe in radical pacifism does have on the national level, whilst your answer just discusses what consequences it doesn't have."

the OP asked 'how Buddhism approaches issues of the power of governments to wield a mighty sword (army, police) versus the pacifism that is often taught by Buddhists'. It is important to know as to what the OP means by Buddhists...The Buddha's teachings did not apply equally to the monks and the lay people...I tried to bring forth that aspect...Besides the article in the end goes at length to explain the role of govt and the soldier, according to the Buddha. The point being Radical Pacifism as defined by the OP is not taught by the Buddha in the context of govt and soldier

@TheDarkKnightRules. The OP asks the following questions: "In countries like Cambodia (97% Buddhists) and Thailand (93% Buddhists) does radical pacifism have any consequences at all at the government level?"
and "Or is (radical) pacifism just an insignificant minority position in Buddhism?". Could you clarify how your post answers the questions? Thank you.

@Lanka tried to add some points...Thanks for pointing out.

I think you said you wanted an example of an instance when pacifism prevailed (and that you're less interested in answers which cite other examples of pacifism not prevailing).
Perhaps the following might count as one example.
Bhumibol Adulyadej -- Crisis of 1992

In 1992, Bhumibol played a key role in Thailand's transition to a democratic system. A coup on 23 February 1991 returned Thailand back under military dictatorship. After a general election in 1992, the majority parties invited General Suchinda Kraprayoon, a leader of the coup group, to be the Prime Minister. This caused much dissent, which escalated into demonstrations that led to a large number of deaths when the military was brought in to control the protesters. The situation became increasingly critical as police and military forces clashed with the protesters. Violence and riots spread out in many areas of the capital with rumours of a rift among the armed forces.
Amidst the fear of civil war, Bhumibol intervened. He summoned Suchinda and the leader of the pro-democracy movement, retired Major General Chamlong Srimuang, to a televised audience, and urged them to find a peaceful resolution. At the height of the crisis, the sight of both men appearing together on their knees (in accordance with royal protocol) made a strong impression on the nation, and led to Suchinda's resignation soon afterwards.
It was one of the few occasions in which Bhumibol directly and publicly intervened in a political conflict. A general election was held shortly afterward, leading to a civilian government.

Black May (1992) -- Royal intervention

Early on the morning of 20 May, the very popular Princess Sirindhorn addressed the country on television, calling for a stop to the violence. Her appeal was rebroadcast throughout the day. That evening, her brother, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, broadcast a similar appeal.
Finally, at 9:30 pm, a television broadcast of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Suchinda, and Chamlong was shown, in which the King demanded that the two men put an end to their confrontation and work together through parliamentary procedures. During the broadcast, the King addressed the two generals:

"The Nation belongs to everyone, not one or two specific people. The problems exist because we don't talk to each other and resolve them together. The problems arise from 'bloodthirstiness'. People can lose their minds when they resort to violence. Eventually, they don't know why they fight each other and what the problems they need to resolve are. They merely know that they must overcome each other and they must be the only winner. This no way leads to victory, but only danger. There will only be losers, only the losers. Those who confront each other will all be the losers. And the loser of the losers will be the Nation. ... For what purpose are you telling yourself that you're the winner when you're standing upon the ruins and debris?".

Suchinda then released Chamlong and announced an amnesty for protesters. He also agreed to support an amendment requiring the prime minister to be elected. Chamlong asked the demonstrators to disperse, which they did. On 24 May 1992, Suchinda resigned as Prime Minister of Thailand.

The king's speech might be fairly explicitly Buddhist: warning people against the risk of "losing their minds" isn't something I'd expect to hear from a non-Buddhist leader, even during a speech against violence.


text:
Why did the Buddha suffer before he died?
I understand that the Buddha became severely ill prior to his death as a result of eating bad food. I also was under the impression that perfectly enlightened beings have obliterated, or rendered ineffective, all of their karma. If this is the case, why would the Buddha, the most perfectly enlightened of all, experience great suffering at the end of his life?

"I also was under the impression that perfectly enlightened beings have obliterated, or rendered ineffective, all of their karma"
The five skhandas are roughly understood as "past kamma". Even arahants experience the fruits of their past kamma and are only free of it in parinibbana. For example, there are suttas describing arahants being hurt. In the case of the Buddha specifically, there's a well known one where he had his foot hurt:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at the Maddakucchi Deer Reserve. Now at that time his foot had been pierced by a stone sliver. Excruciating were the bodily feelings that developed within him — painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed. Having had his outer robe folded in four and laid out, he lay down on his right side in the lion's posture, with one foot placed on top of the other, mindful & alert.
-- SN 1.38

"If this is the case, why would the Buddha, the most perfectly enlightened of all, experience great suffering at the end of his life?"
It's generally understood that he suffered body pain (at least when not in jhana). His own teaching carries this (like the quote above):

"And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.
-- MN 2

A well known sutta on this subject is the The Arrow which illustrates the differences between pain and suffering. Thus, pain could be understood as simply bodily discomfort (even if sharp), but unable to do anything beyond that, say, to his mind (which is naturally not the case for any "normal" person). However, like in the foot episode, he does appear managing these discomforts:

Then the Blessed One — having spent most of the night instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the Kapilavatthu Sakyans with a Dhamma talk — said to Ven. Ananda, "Ananda, speak to the Kapilavatthu Sakyans about the person who follows the practice for one in training. My back aches. I will rest it."
-- MN 53

Finally, body pain (vedana in general) does not cease permanently with nibbana, if a body still has vitality.

Buddha did not experience suffering(mental). He experienced pain due to poor health during his final days. Enlightened beings do not create new Karmas. Also, they have removed the potential of all their past Karmas to give future births. But they can still face the consequences while they live.

The Buddha was still a human being in the sense that he had a physical body as a results of the 5 aggregates.
He was once asked if he was in pain regarding his pains in the back. His answer was that there was pain but he was not bothered by it.
As an enlightened being he had destroyed all defilements and fetters and would therefore not identify or take ownership of the pain. There would be noone to do that. There would just be pain - an impersonal phenomena.

Bear in mind that there's Suffering and suffering.  "suffering" (lower-case "s") is the typical way in which the word is used.  It is the workaday definition of "suffering", i.e., to be in discomfort, to not like something because it brings about physical or mental anguish: being hungry, in pain, heartbroken, in grief, etc.  Believe it or not, these kinds of sufferings are rooted largely in our physiology, i.e., our nervous systems.  We are wired to be repelled by pain, want to sate hunger, have mate(s), etc., because it is how we have evolved as beings, and for good reason.  How long would any living thing live if it could simply ignore hunger or pain, or worse still, actually like it, esp. hunger?  Such a species would quickly die out, and that is contrary to life itself.  That we are alive shows our nature as living beings in this regard: we are alive because we do that which allows us to live, and that includes finding ways to sate hunger, address our wounds, find mate(s), etc.  Living things that don't do that quickly die out.
"Suffering" (capital "S") is a different sort; it's "big-picture" kind of Suffering.  All living things suffer (small "s"), and Buddha taught that and lived it (well, he had no choice).  "Suffering" however is a choice.  When a being chooses to accept as stimulation (or input) any sensation, feeling, or thought and simply acknowledge it without attaching to it (i.e., without identifying with it as being part of itself instead of it being a mere interpretation of stimuli), it is then that Suffering is avoided.  There may still be suffering and that suffering is often a good thing to listen to: hungry?  Get some food.  Lonely?  Get some company.  In pain?  Get some help.  Lower-case "s" suffering thus is a very useful thing to have around.  The mistake people make is that they over-identify with it sometimes and mistake it for being a permanent or definitive part of themselves, when in fact, it's transient input (whether generated by external force, as with pain from a medical condition, or internally, as when someone seems overly focused on pessimistic ideas).  That is what Buddha taught: rising and falling, coming and going, it's all impermanent.  Life itself is included in it; you were not alive before this life (well, leaving aside reincarnation ideas, at least not alive as you are today), then you are alive, then you'll die one day.  So if you had never lived, it'd be all the same.  You had to be born some time, so why kvetch about the fact that life is limited in duration?  And if life has so much suffering in it, even for relatively well-off people such as those living middle-class or better lives in a first world country, why then would anyone really want to live forever?  But our instincts naturally incline us to desire life, since that is a valuable (and evolutionarily advantageous) instinct to have.  It impels us to defend ourselves against attack, get food, seek shelter, and weather all manner of hardships.  So this desire to live is hardly useless.  Yes, even Buddha had it.  He just knew what place it held in the scheme of things and so didn't let it rule the very life that desire existed to protect.
When once asked what he was: a god, a diva, or something else, he replied no to all of them.  He was then asked, well then, what are you?  His reply was simple: "Awake".  Well, for what that's worth, he was known for leaving people with answers that raised more questions than they answered.  But he never claimed (to the best of my knowledge) to be THE most supremely enlightened being to ever walk the face of the Earth, though a lot of other people have said that about him.  Hard to say if they are right but if Buddha himself never claimed it, then I wonder what makes others think that about him?  I'll say this about him: he got the whole all-is-impermanent thing down pretty good.  And teaching loads of people how to meditate was a pretty nice thing to have done, too.  So all in all, he was a pretty decent chap.  Perfect?  No.  No one is.  And perfect by whose standards, anyway?  I think he'd be the first to tell you that perfection is relative, and it is.

Buddha is very well respected as the perfect enlightened one for us Buddhists you know.

Re. your last paragraph, the Buddha is quoted as saying that he is supremely enlightened: for example, in the last verse of Ariyapariyesana Sutta, "All-vanquishing, all-knowing", "I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found", "I, alone, am rightly self-awakened".

I stand corrected!  Thanks for informing me.

He only claims that one like him can't be found, which says nothing at all, since not a single thing can be found.


text:
What does buddhism say about bodybuilding (and weights training)?
Bodybuilding and powerlifting are making us stronger and more manliness, body can produce more testosterone and we're generally healthier. Yes, there are some bad things about this like anabolics or synthol, but in general - can someone who trains with weights become buddhist? Are they too agressive in eyes of buddhists?

Hi Nikola and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

These practices are seeing just like any other sport that does not involve morally problematic activities like killing or hurting other beings: it's just a sport. I don't think power lifters et al. are seen as aggressive -- not like, say, bullfighting or any other blood sport.
But things might be different for a buddhist body builder or power lifter. In the buddhist training, there is a spectrum from lay to monastic, and in that spectrum, the inclination to engage in certain activities change.
For example, a lay buddhist might take to heart five buddhist precepts:

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

These are among the most basic buddhist training rules that enables one to practice buddhism and none has anything to say about body building  -- or sports for that matter (but drugs that cause heedlessness are breaking the fifth, which may obstruct the person's practice). So, lay buddhists can normally practice sports like body building etc. One of the main points of evaluation is ethical conduct and many sports do not present an ethical problem.
Now, a more committed lay buddhist might take some extra precepts, like:
I undertake to abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances, wearing perfume, and using cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).
Taking that vow likely conflicts with watching and participating on competitions. Even though, strictly speaking, it might not be a problem if one just wants to practice the sport, a person more committed to buddhist training might be less inclined to partake in activities that might hurt his or her buddhist training progress.
In the end of the spectrum there's the monk or nun. They are unlikely to devote themselves to activities that require too much (of time, energy, money, etc) and that do not benefit / or creates obstacles to their buddhist practice.

Since you ask, "What buddhism says", one quote which might be relevant is from the Puttamansa Sutta (SN 12.63), which I think recommends what's the appropriate attitude to have towards food:

How, O monks, should the nutriment edible food be considered?
...
What do you think, O monks? Will they eat the food for the pleasure of it, for enjoyment, for comeliness' sake, for (the body's) embellishment?"[7]
"Certainly not, O Lord.

The corresponding quote from the Visuddhimagga,

Reflecting
  wisely, he uses alms food neither for amusement nor for intoxication nor for
  smartening nor for embellishment, but only for the endurance and continuance of
  this body, for the ending of discomfort, and for assisting the life of purity:

‘Thus I
    shall put a stop to old feelings and shall not arouse new feelings, and I shall be
    healthy and blameless and live in comfort.’

Or from the Bhikkhuni Sutta (AN 4.159),

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,]

'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'

Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food.

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

The above are addressed to monks (see also Thiago's answer). In answer to, "can someone who trains with weights become buddhist", I suppose it would be abnormal for a Buddhist monk to be a "body-builder" ... maybe an ambition like "become more manly" is a kind of conceit, where the intention is to beautify the body ... not exactly immoral but not really on-topic as far as a monk is concerned.
On the other hand, some monks do (or have done) physical work: helping to build things using concrete, etc.
And I think that (most?) monks do tend to have some physical exercise in their daily routine: especially walking (or, prostrations); whether it's walking on alms-round each morning, walking meditation, even (in the case of the Dalai Lama) walking on a tread-mill. So some endurance exercise (or "building the body" for endurance even if not to look muscle-bound, or "maintaining" the body even if not "building" it) isn't incompatible with even a monk's life.

With right intention, bodybuilding can be used as a tool to practice wholesome activities, in lieu of more impermanent, less wholesome activities. For example:

A welcoming towards what is normally perceived as negative feelings or vedanā with hard physical training or dieting and deprivation. (FYI: the Zazen Yojinki says you should eat two-thirds of your capacity.)
Lifting heavy weights as an exercise of vitakka and vicara.
Enforcing a wholesome routine which strengthens the body. (It has been said that the body is the physical aspect of the mind.)

Mileage may vary depending upon your definition of bodybuilding. Yours assumes aggression as a prerequisite.


text:
Action committed through self-interest
Is good action that is committed through self interest capable of creating good karma?
For example
one may contemplate, “if I do action X, it will produce good effects in the future for me, or it may make me look like a good person, etc.”
Are such intentions viewed as greedy?
If such intentions are rooted in greed, then it is possible to do something good out of greed? What kind of karmic effect will that produce?

Only wholesome actions can lead to wholesome resultants.
In the same way only unwholesome actions can lead to unwholesome resultants.
This is stated in the first 2 verses of the Dhammapada.

What are the unwholesome actions based in? They are based in the 3 unwholesome roots (akusala-mūla) which are greed, hatred and delusion. From these roots all other defilements emerge.
To act in a wholesome way one needs to cultivate and act on the 3 wholesome roots which are non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion (wisdom). Actions based in these roots will lead to wholesome resultants for oneself and others.
How to cultivate the wholesome roots? By following the Noble Eightfold Path. In here we have the recipe for overcoming suffering and ignorance.
Especially the Wisdom-group which contains "Right View and Right Intention" is relevant here with regard to the twin verses in the Dhammapada, since it cultivates intentions based on renunciation, good-will and harmlessness.

"Are such intentions viewed as greedy?"
If by "good effect" you mean it's a virtuous behavior that produces good kamma fruit, than I find the following blameless:

"if I do action X, it will produce good effects in the future for me"

If a person understand such is the case, the above is simply an acknowledgement of the outcomes that are expected. And if one knows this, one shouldn't refuse doing X afraid of greed. The entirety of the virtue training is based on this very knowledge: of what actions produce what results. We are encouraged to know and see how doing Y is not for our good, and how doing X is; and we are encouraged to do things for our well-fare and well-fare of others.
The greed case likely would be one where "good effects" means producing things that are blameful or not connected to virtue or spiritual life, and there is a desire for these things.

"it may make me look like a good person"

The above might also not be related to greed: say a person who is good, and is seeing as someone who is bad, because of some misunderstanding or something else. It's for their good to try to correct their views and be seeing as the good person they are.
I think a greedy case here would be one where the person is craving and collecting praises of him or herself.


text:
What could I say to someone when they ask me "why do you meditate?"
I was talking to someone about my morning routine, which includes meditation. They asked me why do I do it. I didn't know what to say. Finally I said "you should find out yourself" with a smile. I don't know how to answer this question. I don't want to explain, don't want to preach and don't want to come off like I'm hiding something by not explaining myself. And it's rude to not answer the question. I felt what I said was not the right way to respond. Suggestions?

Here is a playlist by Ven Yuttadhammo on why to meditate: "Top Five Reasons Why Everyone Should Meditate". This might help.

I would suggest that you explain why you meditate.

Some suggestions:

You might phrase it as an invitation ("you could find out yourself") instead of as an order ("you should find out yourself"); and then if they ask more, try to help with their next question.
You might have a normal reluctance to be preachy; but because in this case someone asked (or invited) you to tell them, maybe it's OK for you to get over your normal reluctance and, instead, go ahead and tell them
You could give a short (one-sentence) reply and then wait for their response: "I do it because (state your reason here)". If the reason makes sense to you then maybe it'll make sense to them too; or if not then they can choose to ask (or choose not to ask) more about it.
You could turn it into a dialog or discussion (instead of being preachy) by adding a question at the end; for example "I do it because (here's my reason). Am I right? :-)"
You could give an less-personal answer: instead of saying why you personally meditate, you could reply, "Actually there are some good answers to that: venerable Yuttadhammo posted a 'top five reasons why everyone should meditate' to Youtube" (alternatively whatever or whoever else inspired you)
You could explain your feelings (which might be like discussing your relationship) with the person: for example, "I don't know how to answer that; I wish I could, but ... I don't want to sound preachy."
You could also turn the question around, "Oh! Why do you ask: do you meditate?" Try to see why they're asking or what they know already (because knowing that might help you to answer them).

+1. I also like making it personal, like "it helps me [blank]" where blank can be "relax", "concentrate", "see how my mind works", "clean out my head"...

My response would be "because I want to".

+1 for the last part, sometimes you will find that clearing up their misconception will pave the way to clarify things on their own and then surprisingly they will come back to you next time with a story "oh i tried to meditate the other day.."

"Because I enjoy it."
They did not ask you what the benefits of meditation are, or if you think they should try it, etc.  They asked an extremely simple question, so I would answer it with an extremely simple answer.  If they want to know more, then they can continue to ask further, better questions.

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

I answer as a layperson.
If they ask why you meditate, it might be for many reasons - here are just three,
They believe that the practice is worthless. They want an opening to be contentious.
They see something in you that they wish to emulate or have access to. They are interested in starting a journey.
They belong to a quiz team and are inveterate collectors of facts.
Given that we can never be sure of the motivation of others, I suggest that your reply could simply be,
"Why do you ask?"
Once they explain their motivation, you can answer in terms that will be useful to them.

I usually give one of two answers. The first is simplest. "I meditate to become
less of a person."
The longer answer is:"I meditate because I had no choice. I have a very strong
karmic connection to meditation and path." Since I was a kid.
Usually questions come after these answers are given. It's fun.

I don't want to explain, don't want to preach and don't want to come off like I'm hiding something by not explaining myself.

It's important to know that one does not have to answer all questions that are brought to one.
There are examples of the Buddha not answering questions when he knew that the answer would not be understandable or beneficial for the questioner.
For example when Queen Mallika were reborn in Hell for 7 days. In these 7 days her husband, King Pasenadi asked the Buddha about where his wife has been reborned. The King had great attachment to his wife. The Buddha did not want to trouble him by telling him she was now in Hell so he gave great dhamma discourses for seven days so that the King would only remember his question when he came home. After being in the hell realms Queen Mallika were reborn in the Heavenly Realms. On the seventh day when the King asked the Buddha again the Buddha answered that his wife has been reborn in the heavenly realms.
One can ask oneself before answering questions if the answer is beneficial or detrimental to the questioner and oneself. Also we have the Right Speech faculty of the Noble Eightfold Path to guide us. No lying, harsh speech, slanderous speech or idle chatter is to be made. So one has a set of guidelines to act on basis of.
One also has to think about one's own practice. By taking one's time and effort to answer a question will that then hinder ones own practice?
There are no definite answer to these questions. It's an evalution in the present moment what one should do. By being mindful of reality in the present moment one will know what to do and how to act.
We have the 7 Factors of Enlightenment which should be cultivated in ones practice. The first factor is Mindfulness. This factor comes first because mindfulness is what clears the cognitive ground.
Mindfulness allows the mind to experience reality as it is here and now without any extrapolations, likings, dislikings, interpretations or projections. When the ground is cleared one can then act accordingly to the situation (whether or not to answer a question or how to answer a question).

What could I say to someone when they ask me “why do you meditate?”

If you decide to answer the question there are several ways to approach this.
You could give a short and precise answer or maybe a longer and more in-depth answer. It really depends on your own mood and also who the questioner is. If the questioner is a person that does not seem interested in the topic then you could give the short answer.
If one the other hand the questioner seems very interested in meditation and why you meditate you could give a longer and more in-depth answer.
What should the answer consist of then?
Again this is up to you. You could give a general answer based on what meditation is and how it affects the mind and body. You could tell him about the different techniques e.g. Samatha and Vipasana and explain a bit about them.
Or you could give a more personal answer. You could explain why meditation is important to you and why you have chosen to incorporate it into your life.
There are many options. In a way one has to find out who the questioner is so that one can give an answer that the person can understand. If it's a person who is unfamiliar with religion or spiritual practice then one could explain it on a more basic level, e.g. that some meditation techniques calm the mind by removing distracting thoughts and emotions.
In everyday life most people's perspective is directed outwardly. In meditation one directs the focus inwardly and practices intense introspection. By directing the focus inwardly one can learn about oneself and see how the mind works. In this way one can improve oneself and rid oneself from bad habits and defilements.
You could also explain about the benefits of meditation and explain exactly which benefits you experience and how it makes you and your life better.

It helps me to live (now) in the present.

I am totally vibing with what William Burket said. "It helps me to live in the present"

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


text:
Looking for references to skeptical debates on the subject of rebirth
I am a huge proponent of scientific skepticism, rationalism and critical thinking. As a former Christian, I enjoy watching debates and more recently, discussions on YouTube. I like the debate format because it allows for the use of cross-examination, which is a real art in my opinion; especially as demonstrated in the masterful use of rhetoric by say, the late Christopher Hitchens. Likewise, I enjoy a format geared more toward discussion as it allows me to truly "step inside the head" as it were, of people who I disagree with on a fundamental level and if the conversation is good, to grasp the concepts from angles that may never have occurred to me.
As an example of the difference between the two, let me recommend that you watch two videos. The first one being the debate between Sam Harris and noted Christian apologist, William Lane Craig that took place at Notre Dame.
https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg
Contrast that one with Craig's performance in any of the three videos that were filmed in Australia, mainly in the discussion format with physicist Lawrence Krauss.
https://youtu.be/-b8t70_c8eE
https://youtu.be/V82uGzgoajI
https://youtu.be/7xcgjtps5ks
Now, honesty dictates that I admit my bias going into these. It is that I suspect that the natural world is all there is and that my experience after I die will probably be much like it was before I was born.
However, the aforementioned should in no way be taken as a discounting or criticism of personal experience, i.e. of the numinous or transcendent. I think that people have a basic right to believe whatever they want. What they don't get to have though is automatic immunity from criticism about things they tell others as matters of fact, and this is where my question begins...
Where are the Buddhists engaging in either debate or discussion wherein they are asked simple and direct questions about their epistemology? Debates with the form

"So you believe in and espouse the doctrine of rebirth? That's great, but how do you know it's true?"

or

"By what method of inquiry did you come to this knowledge?" and, "Why is that method of determining what is true equally as or more valid than traditional western methodology?"

The only person I know about who has been willing to attempt this, to his credit, has been Ven. Brahmali in both debate and discussion with Stephen Batchelor. I just wish that more people for whom I have a lot of respect due to their accessible teaching, like Ajahn Brahm and Mattieu Ricard, would follow suit.
Recommendations to videos and books are most welcome.

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

Your question is asking, "Where are the Buddhists engaging in either debate or discussion wherein they are asked simple and direct questions about their epistemology?" I guess you could ask such questions of any Buddhist; and therefore that "any Buddhist" isn't the answer (or doesn't have the answer) you're looking for. Am I right in reading your question as your asking specifically/only for a book or video in which a famous Buddhist teacher replies to skeptical questions about rebirth, preferably in a polemic live debate?

Also, you wrote, "As an example of the difference between the two" ... between what two? It's not clear what "the two" are; the previous paragraph seemed to be to only talk about one thing, i.e. "debate/discussion".

The question itself has already been more-or-less asked already on this site (i.e. in this site's "Q&A format" rather than a live "debate format"): see for example Is rebirth a delusional belief?.

@Chris W. I prefaced the question with examples of the kinds of interactions I'm looking for. I didn't mean to come off as verbose as I might have. Either a debate or a discussion would do, as long as my western mind is able to grasp the concepts therein. It is my understanding that there is a tendency to for some people to explain away doctrinal ideas as being metaphorical. I was trying to avoid that...

Right, ok, so you're looking for examples of debates or discussions (or a "polemic" which I think means a hostile cross-examination). You said you want the subject of that debate to be "their epistemology" ... I think (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) you want the subject of that debate to be more specifically "their epistemology about rebirth" (i.e. their explanation of how they know or claim to know about rebirth).

Hi, I added a link to  Brahmali/Batchelor but am unaware of the other: if anyone has it would be nice to link it as well.

The problem is not new. Several disputes on the subject of rebirth are recorded in traditional texts. In Pāḷi we have the Katthāvatthu - a record of various intellectual disputes with other Buddhists by the Theravādins. In Sanskrit there is Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakārikā (MMK) which disputes the Mainstream Buddhist view of karma and rebirth. Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa records disputes between Sarvāstivādins, Sautrantikas, and others on this subject.
There are a number of points of dispute, but two principle and related arguments. These arguments assume that rebirth is what happens after we die, and that karma is the driving force behind rebirth - or in other words, that rebirth is the primarily effect (vipāka) of actions (karma). It's not well understood that the early Buddhists texts in particular do not teach "actions have consequences" so much as they teach "actions cause rebirth".
Firstly there is the problem of action at a temporal distance. I first described this problem in an essay called "Does Karma Break the Rules." The basic question here is, how does karma manifest an effect (vipāka) long after the cessation of the condition? This is specifically denied by the principle of dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda), which says that when a condition ceases the effect must also cease, with the implication (in the grammar of the statement) that this happens either simultaneously or in immediate sequence. There is no question of a delayed effect from a condition in dependent arising. This argument is made by Nāgārjuna, for example, in chp 17 of MMK:

If the action endures to the time of maturation, then it would permanent
  If it is destroyed, then being destroyed, what fruit will it produce?
  (MMK 17.6. Siderits and Katsura, p.176)

Since the main "effect" of karma is precisely rebirth, then this is a very important question to decide. Nāgārjuna answers it by saying that:

Defilements, actions, and bodies, agents, and fruits, are similar to the city of gandharvas; they are like a mirage, a dream (MMK 17.33, p.191)

But this answer was not routinely accepted by other Buddhists, because even though it solves the problem on the surface, the implications are that nothing is real and most Buddhists found this unsatisfactory. Nāgārjuna was accused of being a nihilist. And in any case the Theravādins ignored these developments in India.
Three main theories emerged to try to show how karma might cause rebirth. The doctrine of momentariness, the doctrine of always existent (sarva-asti) dharmas, and the seed theory.

In momentariness, adopted by the Theravādins, each karma is conceived of as a citta (In AN 6.63 the Buddha says cetanāhaṃ kammaṃ vadāmi - "intention is what I call karma"). This citta arises and passes away in a very short space of time (a moment) and is the condition for the arising of a second identical citta. That citta arises and passes away and is the condition for a third citta. And so on until the final effect of the action manifests, usually combined with other cittas to produce a final citta at death (cuticitta) that conditions the first citta of a new life elsewhere (paṭisandhicitta).
The always existent theory, associated with the Sarvāstivāda, argues that if a dharma (i.e. a mental event) has an effect in the future, then it must exist in the future, else it violates pratītyasamutpāda. Similarly if a past dharma has an effect in the present, then it must still exist in the past or it violates pratītyasamutpāda. Thus dharmas must always exist, in some form, but may only be "active" in the present - which is why we only perceive them in the present. This is a much better theory than most Buddhists give them credit for. Most other Buddhists modified dependent arising to allow for karma, but the Sarvāstivādins opted to retain dependent arising unchanged and modified dharmas. Of course other schools rejected this as a form of eternalism.
The seed theory starts off as a metaphor: cittas are like seeds that are planted in the soil and grow into a plant. The plant and the seed are not the same, nor do they co-exist in time, but one develops into the other. This is an elegant metaphor, but we have no idea of the underlying mechanism. Vasubandhu takes this metaphor and formalises it - this is definitely how karma and rebirth work. He introduces the idea of the ālayavijñāna "store consciousness". But his Yogācāra followers reified the metaphor and made the ālayavijñāna a real thing, thus making the theory eternalist and a wrong view.

Of the three, only 1. and 3. are currently in use, but 2. was very prominent in North India for many centuries.  Each theory introduces a number of ad hoc alterations to the received tradition - indicating that they could not see how karma and rebirth worked as things stood. Unfortunately none of the new formulas really solved the problem (nor did any of the less influential attempts not mentioned here). In several articles on my blog I show that the logic of these solutions to the problem, though in some cases admirable and elegant, actually fail to explain how karma and rebirth work. See especially The Logic of Karma. This leaves us in the present with no workable theory of karma and rebirth. And this is before we invoke science!
Secondly, this led to another big argument, the one over the interim realm (antarābhava). The doctrine of momentariness requires that the stream of cittas be unbroken. For this purpose they had to invent a kind of "neutral gear" called the bhavaṅgacitta which is what the mind is doing when it is not doing anything. It primarily provides continuity when our mind is inactive - such as when we sleep or in the nirodhasamāpatti "attainment of cessation". In this case there can be no gap between death and rebirth or the stream of cittas would be broken.
On the other hand, for other Buddhists the idea of an instantaneous transition did not make sense. Some pointed out that a cart carrying rice from one village to another took an appreciable time to get there. How could a citta fly from one person to another in no time? So they had to invent the interim realm, the antarābhava or bardo in Tibetan, to accommodate this.
At most, only one of these views can be correct. There can either be an interim or not. This dispute is never resolved in Buddhism so that today the official position of the Theravāda school is that there can be no interim realm, and Tibetan schools make the bardo between death and rebirth a particular feature of their teaching. Ironically many modern Theravādins (such as Bhikkhu Sujato) find the interim realm plausible, even though it destroys the stream of cittas that underlies their view of karma and rebirth.
I have been writing essays on this subject for some years now including critiques of the traditionalist views of some prominent Buddhists. Some of my work has also been published in academic journals. A complete list can be found under the heading Afterlife.
In addition I was interviewed by Ted Meissner of The Secular Buddhist on the subject of karma and rebirth:
Doug Smith of the Secular Buddhist Association has also critiqued the Traditionalist view of rebirth: http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/
Someone put together this discussion between me and David Chapman on Twitter on storify.

Atwood, thank you very much for your detailed post. I'm inclined to vote the question as having been answered, although I surely could have asked it more coherently. Thank you for also linking to your wonderfully informative blog. Due to not finding an appropriate place to ask, a quick question for you concerning textual criticism...

This is so good. I'm a little confused with this passage though: "Vasubandhu takes this metaphor and formalises it - this is definitely how karma and rebirth work". The last sentence, is it just reiterating the formalization? I parsed it as if that was your position, but later on you point that all of them are unsatisfactory.

This is a debate from the World Science Festival called "Faith and Science 2010".
There is a Buddhist scholar, namely Thupten Jinpa participating.
Here is a description of the debate:

"For all their historical tensions, scientists and religious scholars from a wide variety of faiths ponder many similar questions—how did the universe begin? How might it end? What is the origin of matter, energy, and life? The modes of inquiry and standards for judging progress are, to be sure, very different. But is there a common ground to be found?
ABC News’ Bill Blakemore moderates a panel that includes evolutionary geneticist Francisco Ayala, astrobiologist Paul Davies, Biblical scholar Elaine Pagels and Buddhist scholar Thupten Jinpa. These leading thinkers who come at these issues from a range of perspectives address the evolving relationship between science and faith."

Important note: I have not seen it yet but i have to point out that it does not say anything about rebirth anywhere here. It might be that a the question will arise in the debate. I don't know yet.
Anyway, enjoy the debate. World Science Festival usually produces some very high quality content.


text:
When and where were the mother and father of Buddha born?
Undoubtedly Buddha was a very famous person. I am very eager to know who were his mother and father and when and where they were born?

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's Family of Gautama Buddha:

The Buddha was born into a family of the kshatriya varna in what is Nepal in 567BCE. He was called Siddhartha in his childhood. His father was King Suddhodana, leader of the Shakya clan in what was the growing state of Kosala, and his mother was Queen Maya. He was raised by his mother's younger sister Maha Pajapati after his mother's death seven days after childbirth.
He later married Yaśodharā, and together they had one child, a son, Rāhula. Both Yaśodharā and Rāhula later became disciples of Buddha.
His first cousin, by his father, Ananda, joined the Buddha as his attendant.

I would also recommend 2 books for you. The first one is called "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammanda and "The Buddha and His Teachings" by Ven. Narada Mahathera.
Both books have an introductory section on the life of the Buddha. In the second book there are also 2 chapters on the Buddha's relatives.


text:
If there is no self how can Nirvana be described as bliss?
I've heard Nirvana described as a state of bliss, but if there is no self then how can it be described as bliss when nobody is there to experience it?

One example of Nirvana described as bliss is Dhammapada verse 203.

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

This seems to have been asked before here

In Dhp 203 nibbāna is described as paramaṇ sukhaṃ - the highest happiness, or the highest well-being. To automatically translate sukha as "bliss" is an error. It is more than anything the opposite of dukkha which means dissatisfaction (suffering is a very crude translation that seldom capture the nuances intended). The contrast here is with ailments and hunger. So well-being and satiation are the more obvious meanings of sukha in this verse.

@ChrisW: thank you for the reference, I liked the story. Blake said, "Man was made for joy and woe; and when this we rightly know, through the world we safely go."

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

According to Buddhism, even when I am typing these words and seeing the screen, there is no one there. The 'person' isn't an existing thing, it is just a label we put on things to describe how things work, and the label of person refers to a large group of many different mental and physical processes.
If there is ultimately no self, does that mean that all experience is impossible? No. There are individual parts that preform functions and made experience possible. When I look at the computer screen, it isn't some sort of seperate "me" inside my head that is seeing the screen. Rather, the coming together of the object, my eye, and and my brain, work together and as a result, awareness of the screen arises.
It's the same way with Nibbana. There isn't anything there that you can really call a person, but there is Nibbana, and there is consciousness that is taking Nibbana as an object (called Lokuttara-Citta in the books of Abhidhamma). It is this consciousness that is blissful.

I'm not exactly sure what your question is. Are you asking whether or not consciousness exists prior to a sense experience?

Where did you hear that something can't come into being if it didn't already exist?

Anyways, according to the Buddha, consciousness (or viññana/vijñana) isn't permanently there. An individual consciousness arises as part of a sense experience and then ceases when it is finished, and the process repeats itself with other sense experiences. This is described in several Suttas in the Salayatana-vagga of the Majjhima nikaya and also dozens if not hundreds in the Salayatana-vagga of the Samyutta Nikaya.

In these passages in the Lankavatara Sutra (and in other places such as the Prajña Paramita Sutras) the Buddha is refuting production, and production in this context has a very specific meaning. It refers to any kind of causation on the ultimate level, or in terms of causes possessing any kind of innate causal power. However, this is not intended to refute causal relationships on the conventional level. This is explained in more detail in other Buddhist texts such as the Mulamadhyamakakarika.

Rather, the coming together of the object, my eye, and and my brain, work together and as a result, awareness of the screen arises.

There is also the conditioned mind which is as close as you can get towards an aatman or soul in the Buddhism world. Remember the unanswered questions, the Buddha hasn't denied the existence of soul, he merely states that impermanence is the nature of all things in nature.

One must be very careful with the idea that there is no self. This is not quite what the early Buddhist texts say. What they say is that when one examines one's experience (the five khandhas: form, sensations, perceptions, volitions and cognitions) one does not find a self, nor anything that belongs to a self (Alagaddupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta no.22).
This is because experience is constantly changing, whereas by the definitions of the time a self is not changing. The unchanging ātman which is not affected by actions or events is a feature of the early Upaniṣads and the Bhagavadgīta. But if your experience is always changing, which can be confirmed by simple introspection, then no unchanging thing will ever be perceptible or comprehensible. At no point did the Buddha say "there is no self". He strongly implies that there is no possibility of an unchanging self.
Thus if there is any unchanging element to a human being we cannot experience it. And thus from a Buddhist point of view it is irrelevant. In the Sabba Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya, 35.23), the Buddha defines "everything" (sabba) as the āyatanas: the six kinds of sense object and the corresponding kinds of sense faculty. Everything of interest to the Buddha is found in experience. And really this makes sense because outside of experience can only be speculated about (there are philosophical problems with this view, but it is conventional enough that most people accept it without question).
Where Descarte said "I think therefore I am", the Buddha might have said "There is experience". He does not conclude that this implies "being", he just acknowledges that there is experience.
On the other hand we do experience ourselves as having a first-person perspective. I experience myself as a self. The Buddha seems to have acknowledged this, but pointed to the fact that feeling like we are someone is just an experience and as such marked by the same characteristics as all experiences: impermanence, disappointment, and insubstantiality.
The problem from a Buddhist point of view is that we are intoxicated with sense experience. And we have a view that happiness is about maximising pleasant sense experiences and minimising unpleasant ones. So we chase experiences in pursuit of happiness. But the nature of experience is impermanence and thus they cannot satisfy.
In the same way, just because there is no permanent feature of experience does not deny that there is an experience we can call "bliss". It is no different from other experiences. Even nibbāna is an experience. It's just that nibbāna radically transforms how we perceive other experiences once we have it. After Nibbāna we stop thinking about sense experience as leading to happiness. It's just what it is and nothing more. Happiness is not something that comes from sense experience at all. It comes from not being intoxicated with sense experience.
So in this context the idea that nibbāna might be accompanied by an experience of bliss is certainly plausible, but not very interesting. In fact as with the Dhammapada verse mentioned above, it's doubtful that sukha even means "bliss" in this context. In fact it is more likely to mean "well-being" or even "happiness".

The best thing to do is spend a moment of introspection watching your own experience.

"It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. Suñña Sutta: Empty

Sabba Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya, 35.23) is merely a refutation of the idea that Brahma, the highest god of Brahmanism, represents the All. It is not an important sutta.  Everything of interest to the Buddha is not found in ordinary experience since an unenlightened person cannot experience everything. That is why the Bodhisatta search for 6 years for enlightenment. That is why samatha-vipassana is practised. In enlightenment, a new experience is revealed, previously unknown to experience. The mind can be blind to many truths. Buddhism is not (subjective) phenomenology.

To make answer clear to you I describe difference between the self, soul, nibbana and parinibbana. There is no soul but there is a collection of temporary things which can call as self. Self is consists of body and mind. Anyone can easily understand that body is not immortal but it is very hard to realize that mind is dying and generating in ultra high speeds. One particle of the mind is called as naama and you can understand the structure of naama in following image which I used to describe same in previous answer.

here 3t1  is the time taken to one naama's existence. naama has 3 states in it's life time - Borning, Existence and destroying. There are billions and billions of naamas generated in eye blink time. So that's why we feel continuous mind. So collection of this continuously dying mind and body you call it as self.
After Intelligent person realizing that there is nothing which can be called as me and mine, He realizes the uselessness of giving comfort to the body to generate some collections of naamas to make it feel as comfort. Due to the efforts of giving comfort to the body with foolishness, we were born in the hell in very very big numbers compared to the heavens and Brahmans. So Intelligent person determine to stop generating these naama and meditate more. After achieve nibbana person get ability to stop naama after parinibbana.
The Bliss  can be experienced by the person who attained nibbana and not yet had parinibbana. He knows the danger he has bypassed with the dhyanas and that will make blissed happiness in the mind. After parinibbana there is no mind, so no physical body and self. Blissness after the parinibbana is there is no self to get hurt by the hell and sadness including upper states.

Nibbana is experienced by the mind. It feels good to the mind. No 'self' is required to feel Nirvana. An analogy is giving a depressed person an anti-depressant drug. The anti-depressant drug is stimulating pleasurable feelings in the nervous system (rather than to a 'self'). Similarly, Nirvana is felt or experienced by the nervous system to be blissful. No self is required to know Nibbana.


text:
Reflections on Repulsiveness
I am wondering if this website, and in particular, the guided audio meditations, are in line with the actual teaching of the 32 parts of the body meditation. I don't know much about it, so I thought I'd get a second opinion here, and also I thought that provided this is a good resource, I would at the same time share it with you all :)

Thank you for sharing the resource.
The complete guide of meditation is given in "Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta" DN 22 (D ii 290) in pali thipitaka .
In this sutta the whole meditation topics are group in four main categories.
I. Kāyānupassanā     - Observation of Kāya
II. Vedanānupassanā -  Observation of Vedanā
III. Cittānupassanā  - Observation of Citta
IV. Dhammānupassanā -  Observation of Dhammas.
The "Kāyānupassanā " section has 6 sub sections.
A. Ānāpāna Pabba              - Section on ānāpāna
   B. Iriyāpatha Pabba           - Section on postures
   C. Sampajāna Pabba            - Section on sampajañña
   D. Paṭikūlamanasikāra Pabba   - Section on repulsiveness
   E. Dhātumanasikāra Pabba      - Section on the Elements
   F. Navasivathika Pabba        - Section on the nine charnel grounds
The 32 part body meditation is relate to section D.E.& F.-
To get a idea some extracts are shown bellow. but it is recommend to read from beginning.
... Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu considers this very body, from the soles of the feet up and from the hair on the head down, which is delimited by its skin and full of various kinds of impurities: "In this kāya, there are the hairs of the head, hairs of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach with its contents, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovial fluid and urine."
...Just as if, bhikkhus, there was a bag having two openings and filled with various kinds of grain,.....
Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on this very kāya, however it is placed, however it is disposed: "In this kāya, there is the earth element, the water element, the fire element and the air element."  ...
Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, just as if he was seeing a dead body, cast away in a charnel ground, one day dead, or two days dead or three days dead, swollen, bluish and festering, he considers this very kāya: "This kāya also is of such a nature, it is going to become like this, and is not free from such a condition ...

The method of practicing is given as ..     Thus he dwells observing kāya in kāya internally, or he dwells observing kāya in kāya
  externally, or he dwells observing kāya in kāya internally and
  externally; he dwells observing the samudaya of phenomena in kāya, or
  he dwells observing the passing away of phenomena in kāya, or he
  dwells observing the samudaya and passing away of phenomena in kāya;
  or else, [realizing:] "this is kāya!" sati is present in him, just to
  the extent of mere ñāṇa and mere paṭissati, he dwells detached, and
  does not cling to anything in the world. Thus, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu
  dwells observing kāya in kāya.


text:
Tips for negotiation from Buddhism
What are the teachings from Pali canon on negotiation in a business or social context? I have read tips such as not to make a false negative attitude on someone's property and acquire it. It is a form of stealing. Or sometimes the buyer will make techniques not to pay the real value. It is also a form of stealing according to Buddhist texts. So my concern is on how to negotiate on things/price such that all the parties involved get happy. I will be really grateful for an answer with some references from Pali Canon or from the teachings of a Buddhist scholar. Thanks in advance.

In the Sigalovada Sutta the Buddha gives the following advice regarding wealth creation

He who acquires his wealth in harmless ways
like to a bee that honey gathers,
riches mount up for him
like ant hill's rapid growth

So the bee gains from the flower and the flower remains as radiant as ever after the bee has visited. The bee doesn't just buzz off leaving the flower an absolute wreck. From that I would suggest that the important point is that during the negotiation neither party is harmed at the end. Negotiation is a part of business and a part of life that many lay followers must engage in but nevertheless it is an activity that should not cause harm.
As an aside, Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula's book The Buddha's teaching on Prosperity gives much more of the Buddhas advice on wealth and wealth creation which you may find interesting.

Thank you for the perfect answer, I really needed the answer for this, I think I got the core of the verse after your explanation, "neither party is harmed at the end". It's the necessary condition in negotiation. Value for one or more parties may be a contributing factor for an exchange. Thank you again for the clean and perfect answer!


text:
Higher textual criticism resources
I would like some resources on textual criticism of the pali canon and other ancient buddhist works generally considered to be trustworthy. These should include works from all three traditions if possible.
Be it via blog, video or audio I don't care.
Theologian Robert M. Price sets a good example example of the level of rigor I'm looking for here in this podcast.
https://youtu.be/AyQPVytxbGI
In other words, accessible to the lay person who doesn't speak in this case, Greek or Aramaic, but not dumbed down and pedantic to the point of being patronizing.

There's not much of the kind of critical criticism of the kind that Price is giving in his talk. Scholars of Buddhism are largely in love with their subject. It is something I have complained about on my blog. Academia is still in the stage of trying to accurately describe what Buddhism is and generally likes what it sees. Few scholars are engaged with what it is not or with the conflicts and contradictions within the tradition.
Perhaps the only prominent scholar who is actively critical is Greg Schopen though much of his criticism is based on the conflict between archaeological evidence and textual evidence. His collection of essays "Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks" is worth reading. This video The Buddha as Businessman shows him giving a talk that gives a good idea of his approach.
Apart from my blog there are a few online references which are openly critical of Buddhist ideas and practices.

The Secular Buddhist Association;
Ted Meissner's  Secular Buddhist podcast (now seems to have merged with the SBA),
Meaningness (by a Buddhist and sometimes about Buddhism, but with a much broader scope).
Glenn Wallis's Speculative Non-Buddhism is a rather acquired taste, but nothing if not critical. Strong influence from Post-modernism and Marxism.
Richard K Payne is an academic who is frequently critical of modernist developments in Buddhism.
There's also Smiling Buddha Cabaret focus on feminist themes.
I have not reviewed Matthew O'Connell's Post-Traditional Buddhism seems to be in a similar vein (he's influenced by Wallis).

There may be more. But this lot will keep you busy for a while. There are a number of websites which are aimed at critical approaches to practice. This is not really my area of expertise, but one can look into the phrase "dharma overground" for example.

Thanks so much, Jayarava Atwood for so much information I can really sink my teeth into.

Great set of links. @user117619 Ajahn Sujato has a reasonably detailed challenge of the work of Greg Schopen on his blog. Just a counter point to the Buddha as a Businessman talk which is enjoyable.

Yes. See my response to Sujato: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/the-ironic-assumptions-of-gregory-schopen/#comment-14663