text:
What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism?
I am specifically interested in the attitude of Theravadan Buddhism toward homosexuality (if it has one at all.) I don't recall ever seeing any references to homosexuality in the suttas...I do recall seeing some non-normative sexual activity discussed in the Vinaya (or its commentary) but am not as familiar with the Vinaya. If anyone can speak to the Vinaya on this topic that would be helpful.
It seems right to assume that homosexual activity would not be treated any differently than heterosexual activity, but the fact that I do not recall seeing it ever discussed, along with general cultural attitudes expressed (e.g., statements by the Buddha (as I recall) that there is nothing more attractive to a man than a woman and vice versa) makes me wonder if I am missing something.
Also, if anyone has any contextual information about the culture in India at that time that would point to why there would be no discussion of homosexuality--e.g., it was absent--that would be helpful.

Did you already read this question's answers?

I think that the reason you only find references to homosexual activity in the vinaya is BECAUSE the vinaya is the only place where there is a need to be specific regarding sexual acts... Oral sex is still oral sex whether it's performed by a man or a woman, an animal or even yourself.
In the Suttas, the teachings, it doesn't matter if you are attracted to the opposite sex, same sex, etc. it's all about craving,clinging, desire, attachment, and aversion all underpinned by ignorance. These come from the mind and go far deeper then sexual identity and attraction.
As for Homosexuality and the Theravada tradition, buddhanet.net strikes again:
http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned.

(1) I actually don't recall references to homosexual activity in the Vinaya (or commentaries)--whether there are any is part of my question; (2) The way you characterize the suttas seems to be in line with the letter and spirit of the Dhamma as I understand it; yet, I don't know of any explicit references to homosexuality in the suttas, which is a bit of a curiousity. (3) The article you linked to is interesting, but it doesn't appear to give any sources even when apparently directly quoting. (4) The claim that homosexuality is not mentioned is something I would like to have someone verify.

This is where I wish I could upvote like 100 times, lol... one of my teachers in Buddhism is a gay man. I'm heterosexual. There was no need to even bring it up until there was denial of one nature or another relating to the practice of sexuality--ergo, having sex. The idea is about physical stimulation, not about who or what is causing it.

The suttas also teach about proper sexual conduct for laypeople (rather than just giving up sex for monks). Therefore, I could not discern the relevance in your post of 'equalizing sexual orientation' based on abstinence.

The Vinaya references I think you are looking for relate to the concept of "pandaka" which ambiguously refers to both intersex people ("hermaphrodite" is an outdated and offensive term that refers to the same thing) and sexually unusual men, such that it ends up describing gay men and transfeminine people as well. This article is an interesting read on the subject Non-normative Sex/Gender Categories in the Theravada Buddhist Scriptures

You can read more about "pandaka" in What is a pandaka? here on the stack

Either way, as Jayantha states, these have nothing to do with lay followers and their sexual preferences being forbidden, instead they are rules seemingly attempting to avoid sexual misconduct within monastic settings. At the same time, the super weird descriptions of sexual types are expositive of attitudes about sexuality during the Buddha's era, seeing as how they refer to things like enjoying masculine oral sex and means of ejaculation, rather than who you are attracted to or your perceived gender (the two categories we now use: homosexual and transgender).

In respect to the cultural context of the Pali suttas, I have only read references to: (i) parents arranging the marriage of their (pubescent) children (DN 31) &; (ii) sex in marriage between husbands & wives (AN 4.53; AN 4.55; DN 31); as wholesome or Buddhist sexual conduct.
In that cultural context, sexual misconduct (per AN 10.176) means to have sex in a way that harms existing family relationships between husbands & wives, parents & children, etc.
In other words, there is obviously nothing in Buddhism that supports the recent 'Sexual Revolution' & sexual liberalism that occurred due to the technology of universal birth-control.
Just because today's culture has significant numbers of 'consenting adults' with no strings attached does not necessarily mean sexual liberalism is considered wholesome in Buddhism.
DN 31 explicitly states 'sexual liberalism' is a road to ruin.
With these cultural contexts in mind, the suttas are silent on homosexuality. Therefore, it can be assumed Buddhist principles hold that homosexual activity outside of committed (homosexual) relationships is unwholesome.
For example, Buddhist principles would support homosexual rights & homosexual marriage but would not support Gay Pride parades & Mardi Gras where gay people perform public sexual acts and promote a liberal/hedonistic gay culture.
Many worthy social crusades, such as 1st wave feminism (which sought equal rights for women) or the decriminalization of homsexuality, end up degenerating, such as into 2nd wave feminism, which campaigned against motherhood & family values and promoted sexual promiscuity for women.
Many good & proper causes get easily hijacked & perverted.
Thus, when it is said Buddhism is not against homosexuality, this does not mean Buddhism supports all actions homosexuals perform. If homosexuals transgress the five moral precepts, Buddhism does not support or endorse those transgressions.

I agree and the suttas do not mention homosexuality, but the Vinaya does mention pandakas...which is admittedly a difficult word to sort out.  I've heard that translated as inter-sexed, hermaphrodite, with Peter Harvey reading it more as an effeminate homosexual.

When I lived in Thailand, in a serious practise monastery, there were obviously a few ex-homosexuals ordained as monks. I know at least two ex-lesbian Western bhikkhuni.

Well, I'm not so sure I'd call them "ex".  Maybe non practicing?  ;-)

It is definitely a refusal when one tries to be qaulified as a Bhikkhus if one is homo, both homo & hetero, one is incompetent, one has both male & female "roots", in the Mahayana. Though Theravada in some extent differs from Mahayana, I doubt in this fundamental doctrine they would divert!

"miccha dhamma" is never about homosexuality, as the comment of the Cakkavattisuttaṃ (DN 26) is wrong.
The word "miccha dhamma" and other two words are also appear in the Palokasuttaṃ (AN.3.56), and no comment about homosexuality here (as far as I know).
Obviously, "miccha dhamma" just means any bad practices or something away from sammā (involving greed to others' belongings or possessions) which happening in natural and man-made disasters, not some specific action.
The three words (adhamma-rāga), (visama-lobha), (miccha dhamma) have the similar meaning. The meaning of rāga is similar to lobha, and the meaning of visama is similar to adhamma & miccha dhamma. So, it does not mean some specific action, and the three words are just some ancient pali collocations.
That wrong comment just came from some medieval homophobic buddhists like any homophobic Buddhists in the Modern times, whether he is living in Sri Lanka or not, whether where he living colonized by Britain's CHRISTIAN CUSTOM or not.
Non-majority is not deviant practice, as left-handers are not. However discrimination against minority is deviant practice, so anyone does so is deviant.
And I must say if homosexuality involving any of this, then Buddha would say more in other suttas, not just appearing in the mouth of some medieval homophobic commentators and their homophobic followers.
Again, I can not comment, so I will post here. Vinaya does mention pandakas, but the meaning of pandaka is about impotence or eunuch.
The category of pandaka is limited to five, and every category has its specific meaning involving impotence or eunuch.
It's just because some pandakas having sex with men, thus interpreted that it is connected to homosexuality by some people. (However, In the Chinese version of sarvāstivāda-vinaya, the pandaka also trying to have sex with women)
[十誦律(the Chinese version of sarvāstivāda-vinaya)：是時，跋難陀釋子，與不能男出家(this paragraph mentioned the pandaka)。是人，夜捫摸諸比丘，諸比丘驅出(this paragraph mentioned trying to have sex with bhikkhu, namely men)。到比丘尼邊式叉摩尼沙彌沙彌尼邊，皆捫摸諸比丘尼學戒尼，諸沙彌沙彌尼盡驅出(and this paragraph mentioned trying to have sex with bhikkhunī, namely women)。]
The following articles introduce the five types of pandaka and its meaning :

Semen, Viagra and Pandaka: Ancient Endocrinology and Modern Day Discrimination
The Two Meanings of the Pali Term "pandaka"

The vinaya does not say anything about homosexuality or heterosexuality affect the qualification of bhikkhu. (definition of homosexuality/heterosexuality: the sexual desire for the same gender or opposite gender.)
你應該懂中文？我直接用中文。

黃門/不能男是同一個詞彙的翻譯，律典當中已經表明，黃門只限制在五個類別裡，每一個類別的定義，都不是同性戀的定義。

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%83%E9%96%80_(%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99)
《決定藏論》：不能男人有三種異。一者具足不能。二者有時非時。三者毀傷損害。出生以來本無男根。是名具足不能人。又半月能男。謂前十四日不能。唯第十五日能。又使他摩觸則能。不觸不能。又見他行慾則能不見不能。是名有時非時。又復刀杖傷損病壞墮落值毒觸火呪術所斷。先有男根後則失壞悉不能男。是名毀傷損害不能男人。一者本是黃門而不能男。二者本非黃門而不能男。三者本是黃門非不能男。使他觸身則能生樂。是名人根不具。
決定藏論說見他人行淫才能勃起、半月才能勃起，使他摩觸(按照巴利語和印度醫書的解釋，指灌撒[精子]來治療不能勃起）才能勃起，這些都屬於「有時非時」。有時非時，不是指一種特定情況的陽痿類別，還能是其它的什麼嘛？

律典問「汝是丈夫不」。根據南山律學辭典的定義，丈夫與否，根本和其性欲對象無關。

http://www.buddhaspace.org/dict/nvd/data/%25E6%25AF%2594%25E4%25B8%2598%25E5%258F%2597%25E6%2588%2592%25E6%25B3%2595.html
律本云，年滿二十者，能耐寒、熱、風、雨、飢、渴、持戒、一食、忍惡言，及毒蟲十事，是丈夫相。僧祇云，二十已上，七十已下，有所堪能，是丈夫位，得與受戒。若過若減，縱有所堪，及是應法而無所堪者，並不得與授戒。
把丈夫翻成(husband-man) 來解釋，是只看中文的望文生義。

《摩訶僧祇律》很清楚的把「向男比丘求歡的男子」以及「向男比丘求歡的黃門」區分開來。清楚顯示了，在律典中，一個對男人有性欲的男人，和一個對男人有性欲的黃門，根本不是同個概念。

次佛住舍衛城。廣說如上。有一比丘。時到著入聚落衣持鉢入城。次行乞食至一家。爾時家中有一男子謂比丘言可前大德共作如是事來。比丘答言。世尊制戒不得行婬。彼言。我知制戒。不得與女人行婬。而我是男子。是比丘便隨彼意。隨彼意已尋生疑悔。具白世尊。佛告比丘。汝不知佛制戒不得行婬耶。世尊我知制戒。自謂不得與女人行婬。不謂男子。佛言。比丘男子亦犯波羅夷
復次佛住舍衛城。廣說如上。有一比丘。時到著入聚落衣持鉢入城。次行乞食至一家。有一黃門謂比丘言。可前大德共作如是事來。比丘言。世尊制戒不得行婬。彼言我知制戒。不得與男女行婬。我非男非女。是比丘便隨彼意。隨彼意已即生疑悔。具白世尊。佛告比丘。汝不知佛制戒不得行婬耶。世尊我知制戒。自謂不得與男女行婬。今此黃門非男非女。佛言比丘婬黃門亦犯波羅夷。
以上這些證據都很清楚指向黃門的定義，和同性戀的定義根本是兩回事。不過有些人總要拿自身的偏見，來進行無謂的指責和混淆。
順便補充我找到的，關於(adhamma-rāga), (visama-lobha), (miccha dhamma)的解釋：
大薩遮尼乾子所說經:「大師。於何時中。諸小王等。行王論法。答言。大王。於末世時。轉輪聖王隱沒不現。正法不行邪法競興。眾生心惡起三種過。*一者樂於非法貪心。二者起於顛倒貪心。三者邪法羅網纏心。*彼諸小王。自無智慧退失明解。是故聖人說諸小王治國論法。為行正法護世眾生。王言。大師。云何名為樂於非法貪心。答言。大王。於十不善惡業道中生於樂心。是名樂於非法貪心。云何名為顛倒貪心。自己手力得諸資生。依時節得。依正法得。依如法得。不生足心。更求他財。如是名為顛倒貪心。王言。大師。云何名為邪法羅網之所纏心。答言。大王。於諸外道非義論中起義論想。於無益論生利益想。於非法中生是法想。於末世時。非是智者所作論中。以為正論。生於信心。熏修邪見。以為福德。是名邪法羅網纏心。」
「大王。於諸外道非義論中起義論想。於無益論生利益想。於非法中生是法想。於末世時。非是智者所作論中。以為正論。生於信心。熏修邪見。以為福德。是名邪法羅網纏心」，這個才應該是miccha dhamma的意思。正好說明我之前的推測是有依據的。那種把miccha dhamma縮小成特定行為的解釋，反而無法在「經典」和「構字」上找到根據。

I deleted all the comments under this answer. The purpose of comments is to suggest improvements to an answer. and the comments didn't seem to be doing that.

You're right, in the Translation of Anguttara Nikaya, Buddhaghosa (in the Anguttara Nikaya-atthakatha/commentary) explained micchadhamma as false Dhamma (not homosexual acts), but in the Translation of Digha Nikaya, Buddhaghosa (in the Digha Atthakatha/commentary) explained micchadhamma as 'men-with-men, women-with-women'. I want to agree with you, but it can't be that Buddhaghosa's commentary is wrong, right? Can you give me a proof that the comment of the Cakkavattisuttaṃ (DN 26) is wrong?

What do you mean give a proof that the comment of the Cakkavattisuttaṃ (DN 26) is wrong?
DN 26 gives these three terms "adhamma-rāga, visama-lobha, miccha dhamma", and doesn't explain the meaning of these terms. The literal meaning of miccha-dhamma is wrong dhamma. The comment explains its meaning specific to "the desire between men-with-men, women-with-women". Other sources give different explanations, like the commentary of Anguttara Nikaya and a Mahayana sutra: Bodhisattvagocaropāyaviṣayavikurvāṇanirdeśa (大薩遮尼乾子所說經 ).

That there are other explanations represents the three terms don't have specific meanings, and I don't see why I can only choose the explanation of Digha Atthakatha. As for the correctness of the Pali Atthakatha, there always are some discussions about other alternative explanations about some specific terms. In fact, I think it's those who adhere to the explanation of the Digha Atthakatha should give the reason why one should only choose its explanation, and why that explanation is more correct than others.

And If you want me to give an counterexample for the link between wrong dhamma and homosexual desire, there are some possibilities. Fore one, the Vinaya rules that monks who have same-sex contact acquire more lighter penalties than hetero-sex contact. Also there are some stories or examples about gender transformation, like Soreyya.  tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=043

What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism?

Buddhism doesn't concern itself with superficial stuff like that. Buddhism is on a much deeper and more internal level. It's about purification of mind through the practice of The Noble Eightfold Path.
It doesn't matter how you look, what your sexuality etc. is. Desire or craving for a male body or a female body is still just desire and craving and the same methods (meditation, mindfulness, guarding the sense doors, right view) for working with these defilements apply.

When you tread the path according to the Dhamma, whatever that you come across in life, you must assess the object for cause and effect (hetu-pala dhamma) and understand whether there is harm to self, others and to the nature before taking any action (be it mental, physical or verbal).
If one assesses the matter at hand for cause and effect (hetu-pala dhamma) and understands whether there is harm to self, others and environment before taking any action, one lives in accordance with a code of moral conduct without being indebted to anyone in the infinite samsara. This means one treads Dhamma Path.

And how does this relate to the question?

If 1000 novices ordain at age 7, how many will turn out gay and what happens to them?
Obviously some of that sample will probably turn out to be gay and nothing special will happen but they will face different challenges, trials and tribulations.
There is a sutta about Vakkali, he was fond of the Buddha so much that he had to be sent away.
The texts do not spell out that Vakkali was gay but Buddha sent him away and there is a sutta saying that he was fond of Buddha's form;

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see the Blessed One."

"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."[3]https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.087x.wlsh.html

It's a very controversial disciple but as i personally understand it, he was more likely than not gay.
There is also an allowance for a monk in whom female characteristics appear to join the nun sangha.
It is my impression that there is nothing inherently different to being gay but some should probably not be living in close quarters with other monks.

Vakkali is not necessarily gay. In Indian culture today and perhaps also the past, it is considered a blessing for a person to look upon a saint with his or her own eyes.

The thing is that he was so fond of the Buddha that he had to be sent away + Sutta have it that Vakkali was specifically fond of looking at the foul body. The two circumstances make me lean to Vakkali having a crush, love & devotion to the Buddha. I think this is the most easy explaination. I don't even know what else would be a more simple explaination to fit the circumstances. I think i am being objective when i see it as most simple explaination.

To say it is a cultural thing, i can entertain the idea but it seems to me as being far more unlikely because to be thus obsessed with looking at a saint that one has to be evicted from the dwelling is borderline madness. I don't think he necessarily wanted to have sex with the Buddha but i lean to it being fondness of the physical appearance and all around admiration.

In which sutta does it say that Vakkali had to be sent away?

Afaik It's not Sutta but Theragāthā, Commentary ThagA.i.420

I never looked much into it but you can find references to texts here http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/va/vakkali.htm

Sexual perversion or disfunctions, abnormalities, have causes, do not arise without. And what are the causes that one, if gaining a human existance, finds him caught in such misery? Disloyalty, going after lust, sexual misconduct. Knowing the outcomes of this, the instructed abstains from conducts leding to such misery, is devoted to loyalty, doesn't go after lust and leads a life not centered on pleasure of the flesh. Now thinking on how many are after porns, what does one think: Will sexual perversion increase or decrease fastly? And wher would you stand, becoming again?

In Paarajika, where a Bhikku lost his state of Bhikku, it is described that homosexuality is one of the reason to lost the state of Bhikku.
If other monk is accidently falls over another Bhikku while sleeping, the Bhikku should stay without shake his body. The Bhikku who shake his body will loose the state of Bhikku.

Just to clarify, homosexuality as a preference is not a parajika; having homosexual sex (or any sex) is.

Please cite references.

1st of all Buddhism does not prohibit or have anything against being gay. But Hethorosexuality is unwholsome as it is rooted in desire, though lay people may engage in such activities, within Sila. Homosexuality activity needs to have stronger attraction than is Hethorosexual avtivity, which is more unwholsome. When engaging in any sexsual activity if compaired to a fall, Hetrosexuality say is a 3 foot fall, hence you get hurt in the long run less, Homosexuality is a 6 foot fall, which you you are likely to get more hurt by this in the long run than Hethorosexuality, as weight of attaction is stronger between partners. Incest is more grave like say a 9 foot fall. There will be future society when this also may become accepted, according to the quote below. In each case the attachment is relative. Also historically hetrosexsual people have been less liberal, but current liberal practices have more attachment than in the past so more unwholesome mind moments.
Any form of sexual attraction including being gay is based on desire which is unwholesome and result experiences which are painful in the future. Buddhism deals with correcting you metal tendencies by getting rid of the roots which creates misery. This is done through practicing Vipassana and is a gradual process. Through Vipassana you can transcend any sexual preferences and orientation. To get more insights into this it is best you take a course at: https://www.dhamma.org or http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/
See: Saññoga Sutta
Homosexuality is considered a deviant practice. This is rooted in excessive lust.

Now, bhikshus, amongst those humans whose life-span was 500 years, three things were widespread,
that is, abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct.
With the increase of abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct,
the life-span of beings declined, their beauty declined, too.
For these humans whose life-span and beauty were declining, whose lifespan was 500 years, that of some of their children was 250 years, and some 200 years.

More lust in deviant practices is worse off that non deviant pratice like hetrosexuality, which in some cases in the past may have been less rooted in desire, but both are rooted in unwholesomeness.
See: Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta

According to the Dīgha Commentary, here “abnormal lust” (adhamma,raga) refers to incest, that is,
“lust between mother and mother’s sister and father’s sister and maternal uncle’s wife and other such
improper situations” (mata matuccha pituccha matulanī ti adike ayutta-t,thane rago); “neurotic desire”
(visama,lobha) refers to excessive greed by way of consuming things (paribhoga,yuttesu pi thanesu atibalava,lobho,
in other words, excessive materialism and consumerism); and “deviant practices” (miccha,dhamma)
refer to sexuality “between men and men, women with women.” (DA 3:853)

Is is bit unclear as to whether this is a transgression of morality but it is considered less ideal than being straight. Being straight also is based on unwholesome roots of attachment. In any case lack of fidelity and cheating in a sexual relationship would be a moral transgression.
Also Buddhism do not hold any specific attitudes towards anything as such but your choice of action is shaped by the expected results of a action or view which you cling onto. Has iterated before, homosexuality is a result of excessive lust, one should approach these practices more cautiously and perhaps practice meditation to overcome lust. If you die with lust the chancesare that your next birth will be bad.
Though in the time of the Buddha these practices would have been there this would not have been widespread as now due to longevity during the period would have resulted in the amount of lust would have been less. Hence would have not come up much.
If you look at resent history homosexuality this was not wide spread as it is now.
Having said this you should not have prejudice or negative attitude towards homosexuals. This could lead to you creating negative Karma for your self if you follow through with any action.

"Homosexuality is considered a deviant pratice. This is rooted in excessive lust."
Where in the Saññoga Sutta or any sutta does it say the above quote or anything like it? Are you implying homosexuals have more lust than heterosexuals?

See note 198 Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta

“deviant conduct” (miccha,dhamma) as
homosexuality, ie, sex “between men and men, women with women.”

that is, abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct.  - Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta. This is not in Saññoga Sutta which is reference to the 1st paragraph while Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta is reference to the next.

Okay, can we find the "commentary here" in this statement: "The Commentary here ex-
plains “abnormal lust” as incest, “excessive greed” or “neurotic desire,” as unbridled materialism and
consumerism, and “deviant conduct” as homosexuality (DA 3:853). [5.1; §17.5 n]"?

I would presume that it is in the commentary as these writing are proof read by many experts before releasing and continuously updated afterwards. In this case the Pali passage is also quoted.

Just because a commentary is placed with the Buddha's teachings doesn't make it necessarily in harmony with the Buddha's teachings, right?

This is from a early commentary. Like with any book some commentaries may have errors. In this case I do not think so as to majority is to be straight and homosexuality is the exception or which is deviating from the main stream.

This answer has been downvoted to -6 and has recently been flagged as offensive. Maybe you could delete it. Or if you're willing to edit it, I suggest two changes to try to make it less offensive: 1) quote whatever exact (Pali?) word is used in the original, instead of saying "deviant" (because "deviant" can be understood has having some offensive connotations in English); 2) instead the passive voice "is considered", specify more precisely who or what considers that, i.e. perhaps it's just you ("I consider it") ... or if it's not you, is it perhaps some-or-other commentary that says that?

@Suminda I upvoted your answer, pls keep it to show that the correct understanding but being unliked by majority. Like most situation, this is the age of evil, the Iron Age

@Bhumishu米殊 My answer is based on the Suttas and commentaries though not very popular. Appreciate that at least some are in agreement.

Ehh, you are slipping by the fact that homosexuals don't tend get children so how could lifespan of those who were the children of deviants then decrease..."With the increase of abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct, the life-span of beings declined, their beauty declined, too. For these humans whose life-span and beauty were declining, whose lifespan was 500 years, that of some of their children was 250 years, and some 200 years." I guess we are all children of supergay parents given that our lifespan is short of 100 years according to this hypothesis.


text:
What is the precise meaning of anatta?
This is focusing in on one specific aspect of what was asked here: What are the three marks of existence?
I often hear "anatta" explained as being an expression of the non-existence of the self. However, various places add an adjective first. For example, I've heard it said that anatta refers to the non-existence of a "permanent" self, or a "material" self, or a "separate" self (or some combination of those and others).
It seems clear to me that it cannot mean the non-existence of a self per se, because such a statement -- "There is no self" -- would be auto-refuting.
So exactly what is meant by anatta?

Can you elaborate on how it is 'auto-refuting'?

Sankha, see my comment in response to zweibel's answer below

This question drew a lot of new users to post answers - interesting. Anatta seems to be the single most difficult concept to accept. You could almost define it as the whole teaching (no disrespect implied!)

Anatta is used in an adjectival sense, as a characteristic of something (all things including nibbana, in fact). So it doesn't have anything to do directly with a philosophy that "there is no self". This doesn't by any means suggest that the Buddha encouraged belief in a self. The best refutation of such an idea that I know of is in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22):

23.“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who
  clings to it.262 "" But do you see any such doctrine of self,
  bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any
  doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair in one who clings to it.
...
25.“Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?” —“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Or, there being what belongs
  to a self, would there be for me a self?”—“Yes, venerable
  sir.”—“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not
  apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views,
  namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be
  permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure
  as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish
  teaching?”
“What else could it be, venerable sir, but an utterly and completely
  foolish teaching?”
(Bodhi, Trans)

So what does anatta mean, then? According to the Visuddhimagga, it means specifically that the item in question has no core (asāraka), as per the third stage of insight knowledge:

‘Materiality, whether past, future, or present, is impermanent in the sense of destruction, painful in the sense of terror, not-self in the sense of having no core,’ is knowledge of comprehension.
Path of Purification, XX.6

The explanation of having no core means having none of the four kinds of self:

Sāmi attā - controlling self
Nivāsī attā - continuous self
Kāraka attā - active agent self
Vedaka attā - experiencing self

These four types of self are explained in the Mahasi Sayadaw's discourse on the anatta-lakkhana-sutta. Briefly, according to the Visuddhimagga:

In the sense of having no core because of the absence of any core of
  self conceived as a self, an abider, a doer, an experiencer, one who
  is his own master; for what is impermanent is painful (S III 82), and
  it is impossible to escape the impermanence, or the rise and fall and
  oppression, of self, so how could it have the state of a doer, and so
  on? Hence it is said, “Bhikkhus, were materiality self, it would not
  lead to affliction” (S III 66), and so on. So this is also not-self in
  the sense of having no core.
-- Path of Purification XX.16

The Visuddhimagga goes on to give five characteristics of the five aggregates that make them each non-self (the entire list of 40 characteristics is worth reading, but the rest have to do with the other two main characteristics):

as alien because of inability to have mastery exercised over them, and
  because of intractability;
as empty because of their emptiness of the lastingness, beauty,
  pleasure and self that are conceived about them;
as vain  because of
  their emptiness, or because of their triviality; for what is trivial
  is called “vain” in the world;
as void because devoid of the state of
  being an owner, abider, doer, experiencer, director; as not-self
  because of itself having no owner, etc.
as not-self because of itself having no owner, etc.;

-- Path of Purification XX.19

Practically speaking, what does all this mean? Not a whole lot, since the point is not to understand intellectually the concept of non-self, but rather to experience it. From a point of view of experience, non-self is understood through observing that the five aggregates (i.e. the aspects of experience) conform to the explanations above. This understandling comes naturally through objective observation of the four foundations of mindfulness, so it's not really something to ponder over or doubt about.

Cool, thanks. Shades of Wittgenstein's, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereon one must remain silent." in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

@yuttadhammo bhikku - No core does not mean that there is not an Essence of the causal laws (Self). In other words, if the ephemeral materiality (instant subtance of instant form,) found in Anatta has no core, then the Self (as the Essence of the causal laws,) has no deliberate core either. I explain: If what belongs to the Self is the essence of the causal laws, and if what belongs to Anatta is impermanent and useless (no core;) then the Self must be useless (no core,) also. Buddha does not seem to rule out the Self, but just to see it as useless as the rest.

@yuttadhammo bhikku - My question is: Is there any occurrence in the teaching of the Bhudda himself that the causal laws strictly belong to Anatta; or otherwise, at large, of an occurence of some kind of their ubiquity (such as belonging to the Self and Not-Self)?

I like the ending part, that this isn't something to discuss or talk about too much but to directly experience and thus taste the freedom of Buddhadharma!

Saying there is no self is a bit of a mistranslation or abbreviated translation. A better translation would be "there is nothing you can take as me, mine or self, which is permanent, non changing and persistent;" though this is more verbose.

The Buddha did not say that there is no self at all. That is a common misunderstanding of anatta.
A recurring theme in the Buddha's teachings is the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism.
With respect to the self, annihilationism is the idea that there is no self at all (see SN44.10). In fact, the Buddha rubbished that idea in the Attakari Sutta:

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

On the other hand, eternalism is the idea that the self is a permanent absolute eternal standalone entity (see SN44.10) at the core of sentient beings.
You can find this idea described in the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita in chapter 2:

That which pervades the entire body, know it to be indestructible. No
one can cause the destruction of the imperishable soul. Only the
material body is perishable; the embodied soul within is
indestructible, immeasurable, and eternal. The soul is neither born,
nor does it ever die; nor having once existed, does it ever cease to
be. The soul is without birth, eternal, immortal, and ageless. It is
not destroyed when the body is destroyed.  As a person sheds worn-out
garments and wears new ones, likewise, at the time of death, the soul
casts off its worn-out body and enters a new one. Weapons cannot shred
the soul, nor can fire burn it. Water cannot wet it, nor can the wind
dry it. The soul is unbreakable and incombustible; it can neither be
dampened nor dried. It is everlasting, in all places, unalterable,
immutable, and primordial. The soul is spoken of as invisible,
inconceivable, and unchangeable.

The Buddha unequivocally rejected eternalism in SN44.10, saying:

"If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self —
were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the
arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"Sabbe dhamma anatta" (Dhp 279) means "all phenomena are not-self". This means that everything including Nibbana does not have a permanent absolute eternal standalone entity in it.
So, according to the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism, there is neither no self at all, nor a permanent absolute eternal standalone entity anywhere.
In that case, where or what is the self?
Here comes the concept of dependent origination, which is a very complex topic.
A summary of dependent origination with respect to the self, is that the self is a mental idea (Snp 4.14) that arises dependent on the inter-working of the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness.
A very nice analogy for this is given in the Vina Sutta:

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
& fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

The lute (vina) is a stringed musical instrument similar to a cello, that you can play by plucking. From it comes music. The different parts of the lute are like the five aggregates. Music is like the self. One might think that the music is located somewhere in the lute or pervades the lute.
Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates.
Perhaps, you can look at it in this way: The musical instrument is the sentient being. The music coming out of the musical instrument is the self. The musical instrument is composed of various parts which are analogous to the five aggregates. When these parts work together, they make music. The way they work together is dependent origination.
And that is a very nice and simple way to think about anatta.
Please see this answer for a detailed explanation of the lute analogy.

I found your remarks on dependent origination and eternalism helpful. "Whatever has the nature to arise, will also pass away.", and this includes the self.

@ruben2020 good answer!

The buddhist concept of anattā/anātman is IMO only fully understandable when seen against the background of mainstream Indian soteriology/liberation theory of the Buddha's time. This background, against which anattā/anātman is shaped is the upaniṣadic theory of an eternal, imperishable, immutable, indestructible and ultimately inalterable self as the core of existence and that-which-is-reborn. The further elaboration of this is in brief: by good and bad actions particles (sometimes thought of as material, sometimes not) of good and bad karman stick to this self and create the illusion of this very self to be identical with the body or certain mental characteristics of the person in question. Liberation then means the insight of this very self, that it is not the body and not identical with the person who is incorporated in this body in this existence.
Now, accordingly, the simplest possible explanation of the buddhist concept of anattā/anātman, which I believe to be its absolute core, is the denial of exactly this self with this particular properties, the upaniṣadic theory of the self.
I don't really get though, what you mean by it being auto-refuting.

auto-refuting means self-refuting, but I used "auto" instead of "self" so as not to confuse things. The statement "There is no self" is self-refuting because by definition a statement has a stater, and the name given to the stater of a statement by the stater of the statement is "self". "This is not a sentence." is another example of a self-refuting statement. They are false by virtue of the fact that they exist.

AFAIK this is a problem that hasn't been considered in buddhism. Indeed, at least I know what you mean now, but I can't really see this as a problem either. The (empirical) person (Skt. pudgala or Pa. puggala) does exist and is capable to make statements, even though there may be no immutable soul. Of course people say "I" and "me" and "mine", the point is just, that these are empty constructs. Empty constructs obviously able to make statements.

@zweibel, it's only a problem to the extent that a lot of people talk about anatta as meaning simply "there is no such thing as self". When described more carefully, as you and yuttadhammo have done, there isn't a problem. (Well -- not that problem. It's still an extremely non-intuitive concept. To the scientifically-trained western mind -- OK, at least to me then -- anyway :-) )

I think the self exists in proportion to the 5 aggregates of clinging. The higher the clinging, the higher the sense of self (ego). So, in this sense, the self does exist. But when in 'perfect' mindfulness and concentration, there's no clinging of any kind so the self disappears, albeit temporary. Even the slightest thought will bring about the sense of a self.
The 'best' way to reduce clinging is to view dhamma (all worldly phenomena) as 1) impermanent, 2) not satisfactory 3) of no essence (not-self), ie. EMPTY.
The Heart Sutta explains it very well.

I view  it differently. I or me are words.A word given to understand the concept of  either I or me.if not for the  word methere wouldn't be  any me. It is through words that we make concepts initially. Then what makes the word? it is sound.how did we get the impression me when that particular sound hit my ear. Either I was taught to think in those terms or made to understand in that sense in the circumstances. If not for my eye (blind since my birth) or ear(deaf since birth) there wouldn't have been I or Me. So anatta in pali is a word which you have to understand as a word. But the anatta concept to be understood beyond a language visible to your eye or sensible to your ear. The only mode you could understand it is not logic. Think beyond language and feel it without eye or ear.
The method is described in Sathipattana Sutta ,the discourse on mindfulness. That is firstly body contemplation, then feeling contemplation, mind contemplation and finally mind object contemplation which would bring about real wisdom to understand anatta concept.
May all of you attain nibbana.
Krisantha

From my earlier answer regarding the term "karma" I slipped into the notion of Anatta as well. Hope that helps:
To understand correctly anattā teachings, we have first to determine what exactly is Something according to Buddha and Buddhism. Something , or positive value, according to Buddhism is 5 skandhas, 12 Āyatanas or 18 Dhātu, i.e. - all perceivable reality - and that is indeed what doesn't reborn.
Buddhism is here inline with Upanishadic teachings on Ātma - which defines: "Ātma is naught" , "Neti, neti" - "Nor this nor that", "Only naught exists" - it is nothing which could be included in our empirical perception, but still it exists, or otherwise - you cannot tell exactly not that it exists, not that it doesn't...
Sadly enough there are many misconceptions on this subject today among people - since there would be different experiences of those clearly perceiving the inner light and those living in ignorance...
Regarding Karma I agree with what was said earlier - on one hand - Karma is vasanas or impressions in the consciousness, or Alaya-vijnana, created by the our Activities - Wrong action, speech or thought - since the word "Karma" itself means Action, Activity in a wider sense.
On the other hand, from the absolute viewpoint of realization of Buddha-mind - those impressions in the mind are as much "real" for the Liberated as the reality of Anatta or ego itself, as much real as all 5 skandhas perceived by the ego, who is not real actually.
So - from the Absolute viewpoint "only naught exist" - nor mind, nor karma, nor Ātma nor perceptions, nor feelings, nor categories have a real being.... They are just a mud hiding from us the ever shining Buddha mind, alas god in other religions...
No wonder in Sanskrit both - Buddha and incarnations of God - are addressed equally - Bhagavān - translated by Buddhist authors - as Lord - and translated by Krishnaits - as "The Divine Personality of Godhead":)
But let's remember - for ordinary people, who are not reached the absolute Liberation yet, not all affections and ignorance is cleared yet - "Everything exists" - meaning all 5 Skandhas exist, and they are quite "real" for an ordinary citizen and cloud their perception and intentions.

Anatta is word form to refudiate the theory of soul. Anatta is impersonal, unknowable, nor fine nor gross, not far nor near, not coloured nir colourless, not moving nor steady, neither with parts nor a whole. Anatta is eye of wisdom.
Where knowing, knower and object to known are indifferent, that state is anatta. Nothing is mine! So, give up that whatever not yours!
Upanishadas believe in Brahman, absolute entity and then said, "you are that". In fact that same Brahman is replaced by the word anatta(no-self) by Buddha. Imagine if one believe in upanshadic theory, insead of detachment, attachment towards mine and me increases. Also that theory is dangerous to the one who is asleep. Instead of proceeding towards goal, he will take the whole world blindly that he is "Brahman".  Buddha replace the word for Brahman(self) into Anatta(non-self).

J. Krishnamurti, recent philosopher, stated: "Observer is the observed". When one observes certain phenomena there is no distinction between the phenomena and the one who observes that phenomena because "I" the observer comes into being through a long series of imprints deposited on the brain of the person during interactions with other persons or things. Observer and observed both are dynamic processes which come into existence through certain combinations and are subject to change and dissolution. This phenomena is what may be termed as anatta and need to be understood in combination with the random nature of all processes which confirm that there are in essence nothing more than any material process one comes across in daily life. There is end to all such things of mind and matter and ,therefore, one needs to be careful in dealing with oneself as one is nothing but a material process. P. S. Rajpal

This pali is completely define anattā. If you deeply understand pali language.

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā, sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā, sabbe dhammā anattāti.

Everything, saṅkhata, that is arose by any causes is impermanent (unstable, even a god can die), so all of it is suffering because of impermanent-characterizes.
But Everything, saṅkhata & nibbāna & paññnatti, that is arose or not by causes, is uncontrollable (no man power), because the arising thing, saṅkhata, never arises by just one cause, or by itself. It must arises by multi causes that each other also arises by multi causes, too. And because the non-arising thing, nibbāna (asaṅkhata), is no arising of anything, so it is no self arise there, too. Also because the non-arising thing, paññatii, is just an imagination : in the other hands, nothing is real in a dream.
Anattalakkaṇasutta is non-self conclusion. But I recommend the meditation in advance, because after you meditated samatha & vipassanā, you will understand abhidhamma, so then anattā will appear very clearly.
I never find the easier more than tipitaka-reciting & tipitaka-memorizing & tipitaka-meditation, to access anattā-insight. I had searched for the commentary of anattā, before I recited & memorized & meditated tipitaka. After I do, no need commentary of anattā anymore. I can clearly understand anatta by logic myself because of tipitaka-reciting & tipitaka-memorizing & tipitaka-meditation (but I still not enlighten nibbāna because I not meditate the meditation enough).
**tipitaka-meditation = meditation follow tipitaka.

I think that, in summary, you're saying that conditioned and unconditioned things are anatta: conditioned things are anatta because they're uncontrollable; and the unconditioned is anatta because the self doesn't arise. If you wrote instead that "the view of self doesn't arise" that would be closer to other people's answers. Also I didn't understand what you added, about paññatii.

Thank you so much. Sotapanna-saupādisesanibbāna-dhātu = "the view of self doesn't arise", but above answer is anupādisesanibbāna-dhātu= nibbāna that ariya is known and nibbāna after dead (see: abhidhammāvatāro nibbānaniddeso). Another, anattā is a kind of paññatti. It is doesn't arise like nibbāna, but nibbāna is a reality. Nibbana is the opposite of being living by taṇhā, so when diṭṭhi with taṇhā (view) can't arise anymore, it is called anupādisesa-nibbānadhātu. And when no being living, finished next life, it is called anupādisesa-nibbānadhātu.

As for, paññatti is just an imagination, not a reality. In the other hands, it look like a dream. Nothing is real in a dream. See this one also: http://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-difference-between-aggregate.html . I am not sure how to modify the answer. I will appreciate to you very much, if you help me (after you understood those 2 nibbāna and paññatti). It is very deep description and deeper when I have to write it in english, because my english still terrible.

i bow to you my friend! understand it directly from the tipitaka - in Buddha's original words, not by some scholar-monk's words, perfect... :)

I think anatta means nonself. Nonself means realizing that no self can be considered as I am because every identification of self passes away, and is the cause of suffering and is changeable.

Anatta simply represents the characteristic of having no substance, being unsubstantial. There is no substance in anything at all. Which is why Nibbana is included in this characteristic, it is unsubstantial, unconditioned. All other phenomena are conditioned but have no underlying substance or Atta that is independent of "underlying" conditions.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Which of the following statements about Nibbana/Nirvana are true?

A) Nibbana is the destruction of the defilements.
B) Nibbana is merely the destruction of defilements.
C) Nibbana is an existing reality that is subjected to the mind totally free of defilements.
D) Nibbana is an existing reality that destroys the defilements in the mind as a result of being the object of Samma Samadhi(Right Concentration)
E) Nibbana is an existing reality that is subjected the mind free of certain defilements.
F) Nibbana is an existing reality that is subjected to the mind when the defilements are subdued.

Nibbana is said to be uncaused. So it should be already existing, even before the defilements are removed. That makes the statement 'B' invalid in my opinion.

Nibbana is actually best understood as the cessation of suffering. The lakkhanadicatuka for nibbana is as follows (minus proximate cause because it is uncaused):

It has peace as its characteristic. Its function is not to die; or its function is to comfort.  It is manifested as the signless; or it is manifested as non-
  diversification.
-- Path Of Purification XVI.66

The relationship between nibbana and the defilements is not direct; it is the noble path that destroys the defilements, not nibbana itself. Even though the suttas say that nibbana is destruction, this is not technically true:

69.[Q. 5] But is not Nibbāna destruction, because of the passage beginning,“That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … [of hate
  … of delusion … is Nibbāna]?” (S  IV 251).
[A.] That is not so, because
  it would follow that Arahantship also was meredestruction. For that
  too is described in the [same] way beginning, “That, friend, which is
  the destruction of greed … of hate … of delusion … is Arahantship]” (S
  IV 252).
-- Path Of Purification XVI.69

The point is that nibbana itself is not destruction, but the attainment of nibbana (and arahantship) brings about the destruction of the defilements.
So A), B), and D) are technically incorrect.
As for C), E), and F), nibbana is an existing reality, but it is not subjected to anything, even the mind. The mind takes nibbana as an object during an experience of cessation, but this too has nothing directly to do with the defilements, which have been abandoned from the first moment of cessation (path consciousness). Therefore, if I am understanding these three statements correctly, they too are not correct.

Bhante, are C,E and F wrong because "being subjected to the mind" implies an experience? Also, is it correct to say "mind taking Nibbana as an object" is a non-experience?

@SankhaKulathantille I don't understand the phrase "being subjected to the mind". It is not really proper English, unless you mean literally "being forced to undergo the mind."

Yes, I just looked up the word usage and it seems different from what I intended to say. What I meant was like if I'm feeling pain, I'm subjected to pain.

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


text:
Do Buddhists have sacred scripture to read?
Christians have The Holy Bible, Muslims have The Noble Quran, Hindus have Bhagavad Gita and many more.
Do Buddhists have sacred scripture(s) to read?

related question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1525/what-are-the-canonical-texts-for-the-buddhisms-of-the-world

possible duplicate of Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?

@ChrisW I think I ask the question first.

Basically the answer is YES, OF COURSE.
The oldest completely available set of scriptures is the Pali canon, the so called tipiṭaka or "three-basket". It contains the vinaya-piṭaka on the rules of monkish life, the sutta-piṭaka which contains by and large the words of the Buddha as collected by disciples and fixed on a number of councils, and last but not least the abhidhamma-piṭaka, which is hardest to translate or explain in just a word. Maybe "basket of systematics" for a start.
In different schools, vehicles, sects of Buddhism there are also different canons current, some of these schools have perished and so parts or most parts of their canons are lost. As pointed out here, there are basically three different canons: What are the major sects of Buddhism?
But when I read your question, I was not hundred percent sure, whether it also somewhat refers to these scriptures being considered as "holy words". If yes, I guess this would be a matter of discussion and elaboration, but the words of the Buddha (sutta-piṭaka) are if I dare say, at the very least auspicious to be heard and read.

;-) Hmm, (Opinion!) I would say: "no". The intention of the Buddha was that his disciples (thus on the long run: we) have his teaching in the memory, in the mind (and also in the daily practice). If something at all were "holy" then this (oral) teaching/transmitting (and memorizing). The literature is only a later tool for us forgetting beings and for the time, where the oral transmission is threatened and/or disrupted. Thus the Pali-canon as scripture should not be seen as "holy" like the "holy Quran". ...

...(contnued) where the "holy Quran" is itself an explicite gift of the Allah and by this -as object itself- "holy". The attitude of "keeping things holy" should -again:if at all- be towards the dharma, the sangha, the Buddha, and not towards the "scripture-of-the-dharma".

You see why I was so cautious to give a statement about all of Buddhism at all. Considering the scriptures as something holy doesn't quite fit with my understanding of Buddhism, though I know from the Buddhist countries, that in practice they do contain some sacredness in the eyes of many or even most people.

You know, in a year when I was often in a smiling mood I've invented some ancient sage, named "Ya Nun", letting him teach his wisdom in sutra-style with disengagement and fine smile. One of that "teachings" is that about the role of the scriptures, teaching the bikkhus at the holy library of the sacred scriptures... Unfortunately I'm unable to translate this appropriately to english, but if someone german-speaking fellow is here around, he/she might enjoy the 2nd teaching in http://go.helms-net.de/txt/yanun/yanun.pdf


text:
Did the Buddha have long ears?
Every statue of the Buddha I have seen depicts him as having long ears.
Did Buddha really have long ears? If so, why and how did he get long ears?

@kingkero I can't go through long articles. I'm looking for short and precise answer.

Fixed my answer, it isn't the 32 marks.

At first sight, this would appear to be the kind of question that would put me off coming to buddhism.SE at all. HOWEVER, on seeing @MatthewMartin's answer, and recalling a tour of the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco where a lot of points of iconography were explained, I realized that it could be made into a pretty good one by changing it to "Why do statues of the Buddha often have long ears?"

UPDATE:

The earlobes are elongated, partly to indicate the Buddha is
  all-hearing and partly as a reminder of the heavy earrings that
  weighed them down before Siddhartha renounced material things to seek
  enlightenment.

ref: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2714/why-do-statues-of-buddha-have-long-earlobes
Ah ha, the Ears reference comes from the 80 minor marks:
ref: http://news.fjnet.com/english/abcOfBudd/200606/t20060626_30901.htm
(credit to  yuttadhammo for solving the mystery)
The idea that the Buddha or a Buddha has 32 marks or physical qualities popped up in Buddhism and iconographers followed this list, but long ears isn't on that list.
ref:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/initial_scope/safe_direction/thirty_excellent_signs_major_marks_.htmlo

So, we are not sure whether Buddha actually had long ears or not, right?

There are no written documents, painting or or the like dating from the time of the Buddha. Iconographers didn't start trying to create statues and pictures of the Buddha for 100s of years after his death.  We can safely assume he had a family resemblance to ethnic Maghadans (the district of India where he was from).

It is on the list of eighty minor characteristics though...

His ears are long like lotus petals.

The Buddha have The 32 Signs of a Great Man and The 80 secondary characteristics. This is one of the 80 minor Characteristics as the the comment by Ven. @yuttadhammo. For further details see: Physical characteristics of the Buddha and Lakkhana Sutta

These marks are historically conditioned, related to the ideal of beauty at that time, or at least of the people writing those lists; seemingly rational arguments for long ears are a part of the idealization game, be they accurate or not. D. Ingram in Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha (pg. 302):

The old Theravada texts go to great lengths to list the 32 interesting
  physical qualities of the Buddha, such as having 40 teeth and arms so
  long that he could touch his knees without bending down. It is
  interesting how things change, as in our modern context that would
  make him look more to us like a dentally challenged Cro-Magnon than a
  spiritual superhero, but I digress.


text:
If Dalai Lama is enlightened, why he keeps coming back?
Assuming the result of enlightenment is attainment of Nirvana, and assuming Dalai Lama is enlightened, why does he keep on getting reborn?
Could it mean that Nirvana means something else, for example a state of egolessness while still a person on planet Earth?

This is a fundamental premise of Mayayana, that the goal is not to be extinguished and leave samsara like an Arhat, but to stick around until everyone is enlightened.
Here is the zen formulation of the Bodhisattva Vow (couldn't find the Tibetan version)

Beings are numberless; I vow to save them. Delusions are
  inexhaustible; I vow to end them. Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to
  enter them. Buddha's Way is unsurpassable; I vow to become it.

As for where one is upon enlightenment, there are more lots of formulations, I don't have a good idea on how to summarize them.

If I can add just a little more detail - the Dalai Lama is an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, the Bodhisattva of compassion. As @MatthewMartin said - Avalokiteśvara will continue to come into the world as long as there are unenlightened beings to help.
Interestingly Avalokiteśvara also eminates as the Karmapa and other Tibetan lamas so presumable can co-exist.

Not sure about the notion of a being been reborn as more that one persion (Karmapa and Dalai Lama) so I've asked the question http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1925/can-a-being-be-reborn-into-more-that-one-body-in-tibetan-buddhism

As Crab Bucket suggests, here, rebirth is one thing, emanation another.

Mahayanas say that if you ask your teacher to come back, he can choose to come back out of compassion, he doesnt have to, he does to help sentient beings.


text:
What is a refuge tree?
What is the nature of a refuge tree(s)?  How does one incorporate a refuge tree(s) into their practice?

What are the Refuge texts in Vajrayana the Refuge Tree?

My understanding of a refuge tree is a visual representation of a lineage of a particular school of Buddhism. From Wikipedia

the lineage of gurus and transmission of teachings is depicted in
  visual form as a visual mind map

For instance I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and we have our own refuge tree (shown below). At the bottom is Sangharakshita winding its way to his teachers (e.g. Dhardo Rimpoche) and up to more historical figures (Hakuin, Milarepa) and into the mythic (Amitabha, Ratnasambhava) up to the Buddhas past present and future (Shaykamuni, Dipankara, Maitreya).

We study it to find inspiration and guidance in other teachers and other times. Because the movement is electic it means something to us to study a Zen figure (Hakuin) and then a Tibetean (Milarepa) and draw out the underlying themes. More pragmatically and politically the Triratna Community has been criticised for lacking a proper lineage so we (over)compensate by having a refuge tree that we study and refer back to.

Refuge tree is a visual representation of the objects of refuge. All the Buddhist schools take refuge in Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) but in Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners also take refuge in the teacher - Lama, who in fact unites Three Roots - Blessing (Lama), Methods (Yidams) and Protection (Protectors).
Let me illustrate the above information with the Refuge Tree of Karma Kagyu lineage shown below. In the middle we have a blue Buddha (Dorje Chang) who represents the Lama, the main refuge in the lineage. To his right, in a circle, we have 10 Buddhas (of ten directions) which represent the first Jewel - Buddha. Behind the tree on top we see a rectangular building which represents the second Jewel - Dharma (Buddha's teachings). To the left of Dorje Chang there is a circle of Bodhisattvas with Chenrezig in the middle - they represent Sangha, the third Jewel. As for the Three Roots, we have the whole Karma Kagyu lineage above Dorje Chang which represents the blessing of the Lamas. Right below him there are Yidams and below the Yidams there are Protectors (wrathful forms surrounded by flames). If you're interested in details, see this interactive map.

In Vajrayana the Refuge Tree is used in the first part of the preliminary practices (Ngöndro) - prostrations. One is visualizing the tree in front of them and is performing the actual physical prostrations in front of it while repeating the Refuge texts.


text:
How does an ālaya-vijñāna work?
And in particular, is it eternal, unchanging and like any other formulation for a soul that we might have seen, in say Christianity or Hinduism?
This particular idea, that ālaya-vijñāna is like a permanent self, is mentioned in "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist", by Stephen Bachelor.

In no way alaya-vijnana is "eternal, unchanging". This is Buddhism after all and nobody will posit totally non-buddhistic concepts which could contradict basic teachings of Buddha. Unenlightened beings may mistakenly perceive alaya-vijnana as Soul, but they may perceive so about any skandha. (One interpretation of why skandhas are five is that it's five assumptions of Self.) Standard analogy for alaya-vijnana is violent current of a river (udakaugha), it may be perceived as solid (from a far) but it's highly changing (if looked closer). Alaya-vijnana is only remains to the end of sansara.

Currently I'm trying to read the "Stilling the Mind" by Alan Wallace. Although he tries to be detailed and didactic, it's very dense. In this book he translates and explains Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence, from Dzogchen school.
If I understood correctly, he uses the expression substrate consciousness for alayavijnana, and he says that in Theravada it's called bhavanga. The five senses and the mind manifest in it. Dreams and after-death bardo also happens on alayavijnana, acording to Alan Wallace.
It isn't like a soul, but it is a continuum of consciousness. It gives the sense of continuity of time, and even after sleeping it allows us to feel this continuity.
And it isn't a self, which is disclaimed by vipassana. But it could be said that it is a self devoid of color, sound, smell, taste, shape or concepts. So it's not a common self.
I don't know if alayavijnana is permanent, but it lasts more than the phenomena of the five senses, the mind and the dreams. It seems that alayavijnana is the consciousness that enable the manifestation of phenomena, or that perceives them manifesting.

The Buddha himself said that he didn't want to talk about the alaya because people would confuse it for a permanent self.
So the answer to your 2nd question is a clear and emphatic NO.
Let's honor his advice and not philosophize about it too much either because understanding and transforming the alaya (and the rest of the consciousness skandha) is the work of a bodhisattva who has mastered the jhanas and already attained Arhatship, something we are not at.
On the other hand... (from Wikipedia):

A similar perspective is give by Walpola Rahula. According to Walpola
Rahula, all the elements of the Yogācāra storehouse-consciousness are
already found in the Pāli Canon.[36] He writes that the three layers
of the mind (citta, manas, and vijñana) as presented by Asaṅga are
also mentioned in the Pāli Canon:
Thus we can see that 'Vijñāna' represents the simple reaction or
response of the sense organs when they come in contact with external
objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the
'Vijñāna-skandha'. 'Manas' represents the aspect of its mental
functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. 'Citta' which
is here called 'Ālayavijñāna', represents the deepest, finest and
subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of consciousness. It
contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all
good and bad future possibilities.[37]

Anyway, go to page 217 of How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization for the clearest account on Alaya that currently exists--at least one that I trust--since we are in the territory of Mind-Only after all... The book is a little expensive but worth it.
Below is a dump of that sub-chapter.

THE EIGHTH (ALAYA) CONSCIOUSNESS The seventh consciousness deposits
its impressions on the eighth consciousness, or alaya, which, as we
have seen, functions as the storehouse of all the residual impressions
left by the functioning of the prior seven consciousnesses. The alaya
does no real judging on its own. Instead, it serves as the neutral
storehouse of all the ìseedsî or germs of everything within the Three
Realms, including all our ideas and the impressions we experience.
This is why it is often called the ìstorehouse of our seeds of
experience.î It is also sometimes called the ìreceptacle
consciousnessî due to the fact that these seeds lie within it. Since
the intermingling of the seeds produces our karma, which is the
retribution of actions we commit in either this life or from previous
lives, it is also at times called the ìretribution consciousness.î All
the consciousnesses have various names, and these are just a few that
we have for the alaya. Asanga said, ìthe objective world and the
subjective ego are only manifestations of the universal consciousness
[alaya],î which helps us further understand its great functioning.
Since the fruits or phenomena which evolve from it mature at varying
times and in varying categories, it is also called the ìvarying
maturing consciousness.î The universal ground of the alaya is a
neutral state, like a mirror which simply reflects things but whose
images are neither good nor bad in themselves. The alaya consciousness
is omnipresent, but if it were not for the functioning of the other
seven consciousnesses, it would not create good and bad karma or
interact with phenomena. Therefore it is described as ìnonrevolving
and indefinite.î In the novel The Journey to the West, the fact that
the monk Xuan Zang always seemed so useless was because he represented
this ìnonrevolvingî eighth consciousness which is ineffective by
itself. In the story, the monk always had to rely on the efforts of
the monkey Sun Wu-kung to get anything done because the monkey
represented the actionable working mind or sixth consciousness. In
describing how consciousness works, it is easiest to say that the
seeds within the alaya ìsurfaceî and are engendered: when conditions
are proper, seeds that are normally covered sprout so as to give rise
to the corresponding experiences. Thus, it is the alaya consciousness
that ultimately gives birth to the manifestation of phenomenal states,
and this happens when the proper conditions come together so that
relevant experiences and circumstances can manifest. In other words,
the seeds within the alaya are always being ìperfumedî
(cross-pollinated, or cross-fertilized) by the first seven
consciousnesses. Furthermore, the seeds within it are always being
influenced by each other because of mutual interaction. This is the
process of ceaseless, subtle transformation that defines the alayaís
workings, and the subtle nature of this transformation is the reason
that no super-computer could ever perfectly predict the karma
determined by the alaya. Nevertheless, through this process of
turning, perfuming or transforming, our karma is always being
determined, and sometimes this karma can be foreknown. As a side note,
this is also the key for how you can change or defer unfortunate karma
that is due. Simply prevent the necessary contributing circumstances
from transpiring, and then the environment that would produce bad
fortune will not occur. Rather, it will have to wait for another time
to manifest when all the proper conditions come together. When you
become enlightened, you will even learn how to change your karma
rather than defer it. You will also become able to understand the
eventual karmic results of all deeds, as well as see the prior acts
responsible for someoneís current karmic conditions. While the various
seeds within the alaya are engendered to affect the various
consciousnesses and bring about experiential realms, we must remember
that the consciousnesses simultaneously perfume the seeds, so they
become in their turn causes which perfume and mature seeds, and which
thereby in turn produce further seeds of experience. The seeds, the
consciousnesses that perfume them, and the seeds subsequently
engendered by this perfuming revolve in a cycle, simultaneously and
reciprocally acting as cause and effect. This is the perfuming of
subtle transformation, a process of interconnected seeds rushing
onwards as a torrential whole whose miraculous movements can never be
stopped. Mind will always be, and the material world will always be,
and there is no possible stopping of either. This is why you must
learn detachment, and how to skillfully master these processes. This
is a very deep and complicated topic. It is so profound that it is
very easy to take it the wrong way. The Dharma master Xuan Zang tried
to summarize these principles by saying, a seed produces a
manifestation, and a manifestation perfumes a seed (simultaneously
acts as a cause and effect). The seeds, the manifestation and
perfuming turn on and on, functioning at one and the same time as
cause and effect. ... Consciousness, from beginningless time, is born
and perishes again from moment to moment, ever successively changing.
As cause it perishes and as fruit it is born again. Through the
evolution of the other consciousnesses the alaya is perfumed and forms
seeds (of future experience). Its sequence of cause and effect is like
a rushing torrent which flows ever onward in sequence, carrying with
it [seeds which] sometimes float and sometimes sink [assume greater or
lesser roles of activity and passivity]. Thus, there is the successive
sequence from beginninglessness of being born and perishing, so that
there is neither permanence nor impermanence. When you finally become
a Buddha through your cultivation efforts, all the seeds of your alaya
consciousness will have been transformed to become pure virtue. Your
stream of mind events and behavior will have all assumed a virtuous
character that is unimaginable. When you reach the realm of the alaya
consciousness through spiritual cultivation and transform it into a
purified, cleansed consciousness, then you can completely ìilluminate
mind and see the true nature.î This is when you can transform it back
into its original inherent identity as the matrix womb of the Buddhas.
This is sort of like flipping any yin aspect of the alaya into a yang
aspect entirely. When you do this we can call the alaya consciousness
the ìenlightenment Tathagata Storehouse,î but before this achievement
it is simply called the alaya or eighth consciousness. Before becoming
a fully enlightened Buddha, the three kinds of seeds that are
necessary for attaining self-realization remain inactive. They are
there, but you never activate them because you do not cultivate the
conditions that lead to their germination. In other words, you do not
put in the required efforts of spiritual cultivation, so the
fruitional results of these seeds do not manifest, but remain covered.
All beings naturally possess these three seeds, but they are not
engendered until they are activated through spiritual striving. These
three seeds include: (1) the seeds for reaching the Hearer state of
attainment (sravaka), which is achieved through listening to the
dharma (2) the seeds for reaching the pratyeka-buddha stage, which
allow you to attain enlightenment without being taught (3) the seeds
for reaching the Bodhisattva enlightenment, which allow you to enter
the Mahayana path The alaya contains the seeds of all experiences,
including the seeds of being attached to the physical body and
sensations that are afflictive barriers to spiritual attainment. Thus,
because of the seeds in the alaya, we all carry around the habit
energy of five sources of error that are major barriers to cultivation
progress, called the five fundamental dwellings: the love of views,
love of desire, love of form, love of the formless, and love of
ignorance. These dwellings of mind always cause affliction and
suffering. Only when you reach the stage of a Buddha can you be free
of these views and experience the immediate presence, or crystal
clarity of nirvana. At this point of spiritual attainment you will
have transformed all the consciousnesses into wisdom functionings. The
alaya acts as a storehouse of the seeds of impressions, but when it is
finally transformed into an enlightened Buddha mind, all things are
manifestly reflected and can be seen as they really are; there is no
intercession of thoughts or idealized images in the way. Thus, when
someone empties the volition skandha and starts cultivating the pure
aggregate of consciousness, they are at the very edge of enlightenment
but not yet awakened to the great matter. At this point, a spiritual
aspirant will be clear and illuminated both inside and out, and we say
they will be able to ìenter without entering.î In other words, the six
sense faculties will be empty and still, and they will no longer run
off in disarray. This does not mean that the sense consciousnesses
will not work anymore, rather it just means they will be clear no
matter what they confront, and so they will function without any
obstructions. At this point you will be able to perceive things
whether the sense organs are operating or not, so you will no longer
be subject to the limitations of the six sense faculties. In fact, at
this stage of attainment you can use the eye to hear or nose to see
since you have reached the root source of the six sense
consciousnesses where they are still undifferentiated. The realm
without entry is the impetus behind the famous spiritual cultivation
method of Avalokiteshvara, which involves listening to sound to trace
hearing back to its source. In this method, which was highly
recommended for our world by the Buddha Manjusri, you return the
function of the hearing-consciousness to the consciousness skandha,
and then fathom the stillness or emptiness within to realize the
self-nature and attain Tao. As Avalokiteshvara reported: I initially
entered the stream of meditation through the sense of hearing, and
thereby forgot the sound of what was heard. As a result, both sounds
(disturbances) and silence (stillness) ceased to arise. Gradually
advancing in this way, both hearing and what was heard both melted
away and vanished, but I did not stop where they ended. When hearing
and what was heard were both forgotten (became empty), there was
nothing to rely upon because hearing left no impression in the mind.
When a sense (like hearing) and the objects of sense both become empty
(in this way), then emptiness and sense merge and reach a state of
absolute perfection. When emptiness and what is being emptied are both
extinguished (emptied or forgotten), then arising and extinction
vanished. At this point the absolute emptiness of nirvana became
manifest, and suddenly I transcended the mundane and supramundane
worlds.4 Thus, it is said, ìEntering the stream, you forget about
where you are, and the entry is already still.î It is also said,
ìReturning the hearing, listen to your nature till the nature reaches
the supreme way.î At this time you will be able to comprehend the
source of all the beings throughout the entire universe, which means
you will be able to ìobserve the origin.î Although people do not
normally recognize it as such, the ability to perceive the fundamental
nature face-to-face is actually the goal of modern science. But
science goes about it in a way that will never succeed. Hopefully the
time will come when scientists recognize that you do not have to
perform investigations with external machines and instruments and
mathematics to ìobserve the origin,î but you can investigate reality
using spiritual prajna and samadhi. When you arrive at the skandha of
consciousness because you have liberated yourself from false thoughts,
you are almost free of the world of defilements, though you have not
finished with it completely. Only when you finally free yourself from
the aggregate of consciousness can you reach complete
self-realization. In other words, enlightenment can be partial or
complete, and partial enlightenment has its own various stages (or
bhumis). Upon enlightenment a practitionerís mind and body, together
with the entire universe, become fused into one, and this whole seems
illumined all the way through like a crystal clear sphere suffused
with light and absent of any obstructions. This is pure, true wondrous
illumination, the perfect purity of fundamental enlightenment. When
the Bible says God is light, it is referring to this state of empty,
infinite, omniscient clarity presence rather than physical light. It
is actually a state of perfect clarity, but the Tibetans sometimes
call this ìluminosityî or ìilluminationî for lack of better terms.
They also call it the ìclear light,î which refers to the primordial
knowing wisdom awareness that is unborn and unconstructed. All the
spiritual schools have trouble describing this, so there are many
different terms. This is the thing that is inherent in life; this is
what is real. Go East or West and it is still there, be born into any
religion and it is still the same. Phenomena change but this never
changes; it is always still there, always constant. We say this
fundamental nature is empty, but it is also wondrous existence. This
is why we call it the dharmadhatu (the Realm of Reality), Tathagata
(Thus Come One), tathagatagarbha (Womb of the Tathagatas), True
Thusness and so on besides True Suchness, or Emptiness. When you reach
this point of self-realization, you are free from reckoning by form,
sensation, cognition, volition and consciousness and have thus cut off
all the skandhas at the root. This is why you can see the karma of all
beings in every direction, for you can understand the totality of
empty but interdependent origination. This stage of attainment is the
hardest to describe, for words fail when talking of self-realization.
Since it is beyond the five skandhas and has the capacity of wisdom
awareness or direct knowing, we just refer to it as true mind. When
through using your mind you can bring an entire galaxy to the palm of
your hand for all to see, as seen in the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, we
are beginning to talk a little of the abilities of true mind. However,
to exercise such functioning also requires great merit. As a lama once
remarked to the Tibetan Master Gampopa, ìA Bodhisattva can demonstrate
miraculous powers by placing multiple galaxies into the smallest
particle of dust. The dust particle does not grow bigger, and the
galaxies do not grow smaller, yet the one can fit into the other. How
amazing!î Gampopa replied, ìThis is simply the nature of phenomena,
wherein almost anything can be achieved. The eyes of human beings can
see the whole of a face; a four inch mirror can capture horses and
elephants; a small bowl of water can reflect the entire moon.î
Gampopa, after saying this, then transformed himself into a figure as
large as a mountain, yet he still fit into a room that could only hold
several people. The room did not grow larger, and neither did
Gampopaís body grow smaller. This was an exhibition of the functioning
of the capabilities of true mind, and since this demonstrative ability
lies outside the realm of the five skandhas, we can truly call this
ability ìgreat merit.î If people want to evaluate such matters in more
detail, they must cultivate to reach some stage of attainment in order
to gain the appropriate understanding. They would also make headway if
they studied the prajna teachings of the Madhyamika, the Mind-only
teachings of Yogacara, and if they became familiar with the Surangama
Sutra, the Lankavatara Sutra, the Prajnaparamitra Sutras, the Flower
Adornment Sutra, the Sutra of Queen Srimala, and the Buddha Maitreyaís
various wisdom sastras which were transmitted by Asanga. Why are
prajna transcendental wisdom teachings so important on this particular
journey? Because prajna is that which enables you to understand the
Tao, and properly cultivate the spiritual path. Prajna transcendental
wisdom is not ordinary human intelligence, because intelligence is
conceptual in nature and limited to your previous knowledge,
experience, feelings and images. The true dharmakaya, on the other
hand, is inconceivable; only prajna transcendental wisdom can lead you
to its very borders. Prajna wisdom is beyond common intelligence and
wisdom because it can lead you to comprehend the essence and origin of
lifeóour original, fundamental nature. Naturally intellectual study or
conception or cognition cannot possibly achieve this end result
because wisdom is only realized through the nonconceptual state, which
is not, by the way, like a blank state of stupor or oblivion. The
nonconceptual state can be likened to the surface of a calm, still
lake wherein the stars and trees and sky are perfectly reflectedóin
clarity and distinctnessó because the lake has no concept of itself to
interfere with the reflection. It has no flaws or imperfections, and
it does not function with any degree of attachment. Therefore the
reflections appear naturally as they really are, without any bias or
distortion. Prajna is the awareness direct knowing nature that sees
things as they really are. You only achieve the great prajna wisdom
through completely engaging in the proper process of spiritual
cultivation. Because of this effort of spiritual cultivation, at the
moment of enlightenment, your own treasury of wisdom opens up. We say
it ìexplodes forth,î but all such words fail because this is something
inexpressible that cannot be explained. For instance, it does not come
forth through mental effort. Rather, it comes naturallyóit just
ìflowsîóyet you have to cultivate to reach this experience of
awakening. It is so important that it is the only thing worthwhile in
the universe. Your purpose in cultivating is to know it and experience
it, and you tread the path of spiritual cultivation to get there.

You say, "The Buddha himself said". Do you agree with the following quote from the Eight Consciousnesses Wikipedia article that, "The ālaya-vijñāna doctrine ... gained its place in a distinctly Yogācāra system ... from 100 to 400 C.E. It is the doctrine that Tsong kha pa, in his Ocean of Eloquence, treats as having been revealed in toto by the Buddha and transmitted to suffering humanity through the Yogācāra founding saints."?

Yes. It is a Mind-Only school concept. More important in Mind-Only is the 10 Omnipresent Factors and noticing them in each moment.My teacher always said though that we use our minds too much and we should rely on methods that reduce sexual desire and thoughts, very simple methods for our complex minds, rather than utilize more complex methods because their convoluted nature and our convoluted world don't go together...

As a major concept used in the Chinese Zen (Ch'an) tradition, the term alayavijnana also appears in the Platform Sutra in conjunction with the arising and functioning of one's self-nature.  The alayavijnana functioning as right-wrong view is a governing principle over the 18 dhatus in three categories of manovijnana, manas and alayavijnana, functioning as wise or unwise reflection for the development of prajna (wisdpom).   In terms of stress associated with wrong view of the six sensed objects, the six sense faculty bases and the six sense consciousnesses, the conditioned dispositions (mental, bodily and verbal) are presented to consciousness. As right-wrong views constitute wisdom of transcendence: the wise development of a whole (think yin-yang -Tao) which in correcting a wrong view suddenly leaves the mind free from it's object and it's sense base empty. The right-wrong construction requires the proper development of prajna to recognize the object and its comprehension as right view in the application of the four noble truths.
The term prajna is absent from the Lanka in which the alayavijnana first appears.  Now, in the Platform Sutra, eliminating the deluded mind of self, ill- will in mind - and mental greed, in relation to the sensed object- all thought arises in relation and reference to the manovijnana, manas and alayavijnana,
In terms of the four noble truths of suffering, the cause, its ending and the path leading to liberation; the Dhrmakaya, Nirminakaya and Sambhobakaya of the PS are capable of functioning as a recepticle of impressions within the physical body since everything dependently arisen is contained in one's own nature.   The Dharmakaya, in the PS is accessible through the special feeling of in-out breathing. This methodology of cultivation leads to direct seeing that self nature is without error, in meditation and undisturbed.
Therefore the Platform Sutra's interpretation of the nature and function of the Alayavijnana is a clarification and reformulation of the Lanka's use of the alayavijnana for which no linguistic signs of words of letters are sacrificed on the alter of discrimination.  The Buddha's message is not the elimination of discrimination by negating the referent of words, but to show that all words and phenomena are dependently arisen and dependently ceased because they only have provisional use due to their impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no-self.

Thank you for answering. I personally won't upvote this answer because I'm not familiar with the topic (and so I can't confirm, for the reader's sake, whether what you wrote is true) -- unfortunately that's true of many Mahayana topics -- but thank you again for answering, and welcome to the site.


text:
Does anyone know of any good Asubha sites?
Does anyone know of any good Asubha sites?  Am interested in suitable objects for contemplation for the overcoming of lust.

Requests for link lists are off topic, but requests for thematic material for ashubha/Patikulamanasikara is on topic. A link list would be low quality info, since the links rapidly turn into 404s.

We haven't really come to a consensus on this @MatthewMartin; see here: maybe this will be a good test - anyone want to cast close votes?

I would vote to close, but don't have the rep to do it yet. My problem with this question is not that is is asking for resources, but that it is a list question. There is no single definitive answer on list questions and there will always be one more site to add. That's why list questions are off-topic on most SE sites (with some exceptions, but in those cases list questions are usually made community-wiki questions)

I think these might be helpful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2JroFk5Ke8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgDHJzBt-YU
I found it more helpful in daily life to be more aware of and look more at old people. I find it also develops helps develop a sense of respect towards fellow humans around. Old people are worthy objects of respect.
No need then for so much blood and gore. Or I have not seen the advantage of it.
I think it all depends from where one works. A sense awareness that there is the same awareness in the object, being bound to this existence, growing old, sick and dying, from my experience, is a very powerful support. More than looking at dead bodies.
Might be different for others.
After that one incident, where I looked at a woman like this, because "fallen in love", could not maintain such enamoured state, because somehow it was demeaning, my thought was I wanted to disappear into the forest and only look at my own mind, to find freedom.
Then looking at any woman at all I was not inclined to have any sexually motivated perception or fantasy anymore for months on end. Feeling very light and freed.
So, this sense, that we are all imprisoned here, going to die. Developing this at the "living object", developes some kind of compassion that one would not be able to have sexual thoughts about this.
Perhaps a bit gone of-topic, because just I find some other ways to be more useful.
Just some not so professional ideas. Hope it may help.
_/_

And another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56LMAamf78A
because could only post one link at once with only so many "credit" points.

See and memorize dissected cadavers. Blood filled bodies after accidents. Imaginate the stools and think that they from inside the body are good points.


text:
Does Buddhism have a significant notion of justice
Owen Flanagan in this podcast argued while Buddhism has an extremely well developed notion of compassion, it doesn't have a significant notion of justice. He contrasts this with ancient Greek philosophies which he states have a strong notion of justice and weak or absent notion of compassion.
So is this correct? Does Buddhism really not have decent (or any) notion of justice. Can anyone perhaps provide examples of justice from the texts (Pali Canon, Mayahana etc..). Or is Owen right - no justice in Buddhism?

What's Greek "justice"? Ref: http://www.philosophy-index.com/terms/dike.php

@MatthewMartin to be honest i don't think my notion of justice is hugely precise. My understanding just derives from a justice system i.e. something leading to a political institution and i know the Greeks discussed these things. But I'm no philosopher. The question could be at home in Philosophy SE but i was keen for some discussion or references to the Buddhist texts. See how we go

While I can relate to this somehow, it overlooks one striking and most basic fact of Buddhism: that justice is a law of nature.
In contrast to Greek thought, this means, that the Greeks, since their concept of "the world" or "the universe" was rather empiro-scientific and unrelated to moral (=human) values, had to look for "human" justice or even "define" justice.
In Buddhism (and India in general), the very law of nature is a moral law, the law of kamma/karman. Consider for example the Paṭiccasamuppāda/Pratītyasamutpāda, which can be viewed as a formulation of the Buddhist law of nature or the kosmos, the universe etc.: everything here is treated as subject to cause/condition and effect, without beginning and end. The important thing to notice is that causation is moral causation by good and bad deeds.
To conclude: since the kosmos is just and takes care of retribution, the religio-philosophical thinkers did not have to elaborate differing visions of justice. It is not the humans, that have to take care of it. Seen from this angle, justice is (implicitly maybe) at the very core of Buddhism.

That's a really good answer. I think that Owen F was reflecting that Buddhism doesn't have a concept of justice at the political level whereas other religious/ethical frameworks do. Could Paṭiccasamuppāda be effective at the political level? Apologies if I have misunderstood something

Since the concept of karmic retribution permeates all worldly matters, of course it has the selfsame validity in political matters. But again, this is a very personal, individual-centered concept of justice (as voiced in Paṭiccasamuppāda). A ruler has to be just for the same reasons and without difference as other beings. Owen F may be right in this, for it is volition that determines bad/good kamma and not the effect of deeds. So, if the intention is the same, big (political) scope of outcome is (kamma-wise) not worse. I faintly remember though a Buddhist concept of a just king. I'll dig and

Got it. What I was looking for is the Cakravartin, compare the Cakkavatti-sīhanāda Suttanta in the Pali canon (DN 26) and maybe this paper: http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/Only_a_Fool_Becomes_a_King.pdf

in the discourses the Buddha is often quoted as giving similes whos employed allegory is punishment for crimes with the latter often described as being very harsh and cruel much in accordance with ancient customs
to be sure, in using similes the Buddha's interest was to convey certain messages and not pass judgement on the then practised legal system
still it's noteworthy that on these occasions the cruelty of punishments is never criticized even in passing implying that it's maybe well deserved
and for the perpetrator, from the ethical perspective, which the Buddha's teaching is characterized with, the cruelty of the state punishment is in fact a blessing as a means of deterrence from acting immorally and spoiling their kamma