text:
What is the reason for attributing Lord Buddha's statues to days the of week?

Image courtesy of ThaiSmile.jp
Visiting Buddhist temples, I often notice several statues of Lord Buddha. As far as I understand, they represent different Boddhisattvas. However, these statues are often attributed to different days of the week.
I tried to ask Buddhist people why this is so, and they have answered me that this is because each Boddhisattva has had some important event in their life (and in Lord Buddha's life as well), and that event has occurred on a corresponding day of week. But I still can not figure out why these events have never clashed and occurred precisely on different days of week.
How can it be? In other words, why have two or more events not happened on the same day of the week? Can it be that such attribution only has metaphoric sense?

This is odd and interesting at the same time. I suspect it's a local superstition. Plus, days of the week were a Western invention and could not have been tracked in Ancient India.

It's actually used to describe character types (horoscopes) for people born on that day of the week (and to collect donations from people born on days ending in 'y'). Sorry, too tired to give a real answer... short answer? It's got little if anything to do with Buddhism.

@yuttadhammo With due respect, but statues of Buddha in Buddhist temples, deliberately marked by Buddhist monks and worshiped differently by Buddhist people — got little to do with Buddhism? :) Well, make sense. :)

@qweilun The idea of a seven-day week may have originated independently in Europe and South Asia, or perhaps it was brought to both places (circa the Vedic period, pre-Buddhism) by migrants from the Near East. Either way, it is possible that early Buddhists could have thought in terms of a seven-day week.

@yuttadhammo While there may not be a scriptural or doctrinal basis for this practice, I think that questions about Buddhism as-it-is-practiced (e.g. what people do in temples) should be on topic.

@bytebuster The question in your title and the question at the bottom of your post aren't really the same. I think it would make sense to focus your post around the question in your title, rather than the question "why isn't there a clash in days" - the answer to that is probably "it worked out more neatly this way".

@senshin I want to disagree, but maybe it's a conversation for meta... Just because it goes on at Buddhist temples doesn't make it Buddhist; in LA, the main Thai monastery holds a beauty pageant every year. Don't tell me we'd allow a question about that practice...

@bytebuster - the statues represent qualities of people born on those days (I'm the second Wednesday one with the alms bowl, IIRC); it's a part of Thai astrology, something I'm pretty sure the Buddha forbid monks to get involved with.

Never seen this in a Theravada temple. is this a Mahayana temple?

I think this needs to be retagged, since it doesn't show different bodhisattvas.  Can anyone suggest a more appropriate tag/tags?

Bytebuster, as a fellow Bangkokian I’m happy to try to answer this question!
This arrangement of images in various postures according to the days of the week is a Thai Buddhist practice, and it doesn’t seem to be very old, dating from the early Bangkok Period (post 1780s).
Let’s consider them from an artistic perspective first.  According to Jean Boisselier:

The gestures and attitudes of a Buddha image permit identification of a particular moment in the Buddha’s career, even when there is no other narrative context for the figure.  They are fully intelligible only to Buddhist worshippers or to those with adequate knowledge of the main events in the Buddha’s life. [...] It should be emphasized here that the frequently employed term mudrā has no real meaning except in the context of Mahāyāna, where each mudrā is, in the strictest sense, the mark of a particular Jina and thus a means of differentiating the Buddhas who, by nature, are all alike.  The mudrās do not suffice to represent all the great miracles, and in the Theravāda – especially in the iconography of Thailand – the term mudrā is not used.

So each posture is meant to show an event in the historical Buddha’s lifetime, they do not identify different bodhisattvas.  Rāma III, a king who ruled from roughly 1825 to 1850, had a list of 40 postures compiled which became the standard for Thai art.  Artists during earlier dynasties sometimes innovated new postures, an example being the graceful “walking Buddhas” of the Sukhothai period (13-15th centuries).  Besides a posture for each day, there are postures assigned to the twelve months and the twelve years under the Thai calendar (a cycle similar to the Chinese year of the horse, tiger etc.)  While these monthly and yearly postures are not as well known, you might find them represented in temple art if you looked.
Here’s a list of the days and postures:

Sunday – Gazing at the bodhi tree (standing, with hands crossed over the thighs)
Monday – Restraining the kinsmen (standing, left hand down and right hand raised, palm open as if repelling something)
Tuesday – Reclining (on right side with head on hand).  This is also interpreted as “asking Rahu to return the sun and moon which he has swallowed” – maybe a more astrological reading?
Wednesday morning – Carrying the alms bowl (standing, holding the bowl with both hands)
Wednesday afternoon – In the Pālileyyaka Forest (sitting as if on a chair, with hands on knees, right hand palm upward).  Here a monkey and an elephant are offering food, the Buddha having retreated to the forest to escape a quarrel among his followers.
Thursday – Meditating (seated with folded legs, both hands in lap with palms upward)
Friday – Reflecting (standing, with hands crossed over the breast)
Saturday – Meditating, sheltered by the nāga Mucalinda.  The Palelai Forest Buddha may appear on this day rather than Wednesday, it seems.

Note that some very common and meaningful postures, like the abhayamudra or subduing Māra, seated with right hand touching the ground, are not part of this set.
It’s true that these day-images are mainly for laypeople, and it may be frowned upon for monks to occupy themselves with something you might regard as superstition.  Often when the images are arranged in a row with candles in front, people pay respect to each one in turn by pouring oil on the candles, rather than focusing on their day only.  There are always more prominent images (and murals) in the assembly hall in any case.  More generally, we shouldn’t be tempted to think of Thai Buddhists as solely concerned with protective magic and astrology.  King Mongkut, who succeeded Rāma III, had been a monk for over 20 years.  As king, he founded the Thammayut order partly because he wanted the sangha to concentrate on textual study rather than magical practices.
Finally, let me point out that Burma has something similar to this. The Buddha images at each day’s station (arrayed around the central stupa) don’t vary, but there are different animals for each (a tiger for Monday and so on).  Take a look at the wiki page for the Shwedagon Pagoda for details, as well as a picture of Barack Obama “pouring water over the shoulder of the Friday Buddha”!  For the Burmese, the day of your birth also can influence the name you are given, one example being the 1950s prime minister U Nu, whose memoir was entitled “Saturday’s Son”.
Note:  The quote here is from Jean Boisselier, The Heritage of Thai Sculpture (Asia Books 1975) p. 202.  For information in Thai, look for titles like พระพุทธรูปปางต่างๆ.  ปาง (paang) is the Thai word for posture here.  In English there is K. Matics, Gestures of the Buddha.

This is a very good answer, but still doesn't make the connection between the practice and Buddhism; it's nice that people pay respect to all the images, but the question as to why they are placed in this formation (i.e. associated with days of the week) doesn't have a Buddhist answer, IMHO.

The link between Buddha figures and days of the week is the same as the link between astronomy and astrology. Basically one has to do with observation and the other with interpretation and seeking good luck.
Are local practices of veneration and good luck seeking a part of Buddhism? Ask local people and they will say so. A part of Buddhist doctrine, no, not really. But both are entwined in living Buddhist cultures.
Note that it isn't actually days of the week, rather planetary gods controlling days or parts of days (Wednesday has two: Wednesday morning Phra Phut (Mercury) and Wednesday afternoon Phra Rahu (The solar eclipse transient.


text:
Buddhist Holidays & Gifts
Are any Buddhist holidays associated with gift giving? If so, which holidays and what types of gifts are customarily given?

Any Buddhist holiday is as good an excuse as any to give gifts :)

Any day is a good day for giving a gift. :-)

In Theravada Buddhism, there are two holidays I can think of that are related to giving: the kathina robe making and the day after the rains is over, called in Thailand devorohana (descending of the lord).
Kathina
Kathina refers to the frame used to make a robe in the time of the Buddha. After the rains, the monks would gather together cloth they had found or received as a gift and give it to a specific monk; any monk who has a worn or tattered robe is an eligible candidate to receive the kathina robe cloth or, if no such candidate exists, the robe may be given to any monk who is skilled in the making of the robe. Once it is determined who will receive the robe cloth, the community gathers together and offers the cloth. They then have twenty-four hours to complete the making of the robe. If they succeed in the communal effort, the entire community receives certain privileges that last for the next four months.
More information about kathina can be found here.
Devorohana
After the Buddha spent the rains in the Tavatimsa heavenly world teaching the Abhidhamma, he is said to have descended to the city of Samkassa on a mystical staircase. In celebration of this event (and the ending of the rains retreat), a ceremonial alms-giving with a Buddha statue leading the way is often performed on this day, often descending from whatever staircase happens to be handy. E.g.:

Other than that, pretty much all Buddhist holidays (Theravada, anyway) are traditionally seen as occasions for special attention to charity as well as morality and mental development.

Here in Sri Lanka we have Dansal(alms giving stalls) on poya days. Just like how Anathapindika used to do in Buddha's time. Anyone and everyone can come and take as much as they like. I had free ice-cream on last Poson poya day. Usually they give away food items. But recently some have even started giving away phone reloads.

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:
What is the overall Buddhist taxonomy?
Building from this question, I'd be really interested in seeing an overall view of the Buddhist taxonomical system. I don't mean the actual names "Therevada", "Mahayana" and so on, or "Soto", "Rinzai" etc. I mean, what is the overall system into which those names fit.
In other words, what is meant by words like: school, sect, lineage, vehicle, branch, tradition, and so on.
I doubt there will be anything as robust as you'd see here, but a rough guide would be nice.

Abandon hope, ye who enter: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools (3) http://santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Sects__Sectarianism_Bhikkhu_Sujato.pdf

Great question tkp. I have wondered long about this, and would be excited to see this coalesce into some sort of map.

We can only propose taxonomy. Plus there is many misuse of the terms. This is how I view things:
school (vada) - It's supposed to be school of thought, so school adherents should share common philosophical view. Probably in ancient times they was. But in modern practice, frequently, any group united by common root is called a school.
sect - sometimes people divide whole Religion into sects, but sometimes they call schools sects. Plus, term inherited from Christianity some negative connotations of heresy. Thus, sometimes word 'sect' is not liked at all.
branch - just general division which is not loaded term as a sect. For example, we can split whole Buddhism into branches (Tibetan, Chinese, etc), but also we can split some tradition into branches (Tibetan into Gelug, Kagyu, etc., or Kagyu into Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu, etc.) It's general classification word like 'part', 'subdivision', etc.
tradition - what is survived (or evolved) to modern day from ancient ages. It's probably region based. But in practice interchangeable with sect or school too.
vehicle (yana) - some theoretical division of the Teaching, used by Buddha in some texts. It's more abstract division than real historical entity. Only historical we have about vehicles is attribution of some texts to vehicles and acceptance or not by some schools of these texts as canonical.
lineage - supposedly unbreaked personal inheritance of some teaching, or student-teacher relationships, from ancient to modern teacher (frequently lineage goes up to the Buddha himself).
vinaya lineage - historically is more important than adherence to philosophy, it's unbreaked succession of ordinance into Sangha by the rules for particular vinaya. Currently only three vinaya lineages are survived.
What else?

I'm not sure if Buddhism can ever be fitted so neatly in such labels and boxes as you would like it to fit. Still, some traditions are sticklers to labeling, and I certainly was encouraged by my teacher spent many hours trying to memorize the names of the original eighteen schools, how they evolved into the main schools of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, how each was split in several subschools, and so forth. The main reason to study all those classifications was to understand how Buddhist philosophy has evolved, and what major questions have been debated and discussed at each stage, and how each understanding of the Dharma can help certain kinds of beings more than others. Thus, a good teacher might be aware of a vast diversity of teachings from different vehicles, schools, sub-schools, and individual monasteries, and teach them according to the ability of the students to understand.
Ultimately, to be honest, I would say that the only important 'classification' that a Buddhist practitioner should worry about is what their lineage is.

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


text:
What was the historical Buddha's ethnicity?
Gautama Buddha is traditionally regarded as having a noble body with 32 signs of a Great Man and one of those signs are deep blue eyes.
I came across many online discussions about Buddha's ethnicity where some stated that Buddha's family - Sakya - was from Scythian descent. I also met some Ukrainians claiming that Sakyas were precisely from the land that now belongs to Ukraine.
Can someone answer the question providing reliable sources or evidence?

Science of beginning of 20th century wrongly identified Europeans with Aryans, that theory then inherited by nazists and then neo-nazists. So be cautious of such claims.

Maybe I didn't phrase the question clearly enough, but regardless of all the claims, I would just like to find out what was Buddha's ethnicity as I can't find a reliable evidence for this piece of information.

D Anthony makes a strong case that the language and general culture of the Indo European People originated about 6000 years ago in the Ukraine. People left the Ukraine and ended up all over the place OR at the very least the culture and the language moved. Ref: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8488.html (And before people came to the Ukraine, they were from somewhere else). This has nothing to do with nazism, the scholarship is good. AND, let me emphasize, this doesn't mean the Buddha was from the Ukraine. He was in north east India/border of Nepal and had a language that originated in Ukr.

i thought the ganges basin, to the north

Let's try not to turn the memory of the Buddha into a bone that different groups struggle over for their own selfish interests...

The historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama was probably Indo-Aryan.
He lived in what is today the Democratic Republic of Nepal. Nepal's ethnicity today comprise mixed race people of Indo-Aryan & East Asian ethnicities.
It is believed He spoke old Magadhi language. He belonged to the Ksyhtriya Varna of the Solar or Ikshvaku dynasty and Gautama Gotra. Before his enlightenment he was a practitioner of what is today called Hinduism.
Sakhya is derived from the Sanskrit word śakya which means capable, able [1]. Sakhyamuni just means a muni(renunciate) from the Sakhya tribe.
From Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary, 2 of the meaning out of many others for the word sakya:

śākya m.   Name of a tribe of landowners and kṣatriya - s in kapila
  -vastu - (from whom gautama - , the founder of Buddhism, was descended)
śākya mfn.     derived or descended from the śaka - s (= śakā abhijano 'sya - )    gaRa śaṇḍikādi

Here the tribe of the Buddha is not given as decedents of Sakas(Scythians) since a distinction is made between Buddha's tribe and the Sakas.
The theory that Sanskrit speaking Aryans came from Southern Russia has been controversial and is disputed.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya

Indo-Aryan is a language family, not an ethnicity.  Ethnicity is actually quite a slippery concept.

Indo-Aryan seems to represent an ethno-linguistic group according to wiki. It is family of languages but spoken by certain ethnicity of people.

All evidence points towards Aryans coming from Western Eurasia. This is not controversial, only among Indians with inferiority complexes who wish to rewrite history because it doesn't amuse their petty egos.

Buddha was from the Saka tribe which is part of the Scythians. And the Scythians were a Thracian/Pelasgian tribe. The Thracians according to the historians covered a large area around the today's Black sea in Europe and Asia Minor. After the great flood which turned the big lake into the now Black sea many migrated to different parts of the world. According to Herodotus they were the most numerous nation on Earth after the Indians. The name Scythians comes from the word "skitam" which means to move a lot from place to place. They were the eastern Thracians.
The Pelasgian/Thracians were the most advanced people on Earth. They created the first civilisation on Earth and had knowledge in every sphere of life. They were the ones who through their migrations spread that knowledge to other people and parts of the world. Part of this knowledge was spiritual which was passed on to other people through the well known spiritual teachers from Pelasgian/Thracian ethnicity one of which was the one called Buddha. Buddha comes from the word "budia" which means awake.
Regarding the Aryans, the Aryans were later called Thracians. The old name of Thracia was Aria. So he was an aryan if we are to use the old name of the Thracians.
There is nothing wrong in calling oneself an Aryan if people are from this descend. I am proud to call myself an Aryan and to know that people like Buddha, Zaratustra, Lao Dzu, Dionysus, Orpheus, Zalmoxis and many more spiritual teachers shared the same blood as me.

It would have been good if you brought in a bit of what the scriptures have said about the Sakya Race. Specially of the incident of Prince Virudhaka and the Massacre of Sakya Tribe.

The only ethnicity claim that has any interest to me is the view, found expressed very rarely, that the Buddha may have been of mixed Mongolian-Aryan type ancestry, based on the location of Nepal and historical information concerning mixed race groups in Nepal as well as the physical description of the Buddha in the Pali Canon. The most academic reference I know of where this is mentioned is The Buddha and Dr. Fuhrer, by Charles Allen (London: Haus Publishing, 2008), p. 1. There is a very small amount of information online about this too.

It is likely that he was Indo-Aryan, descended from the Scythians, the Sakya clan.
Genetic research shows that blue-eyes originated around the northwest coasts of the Black Sea (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-511473/All-blue-eyed-people-traced-ancestor-lived-10-000-years-ago-near-Black-Sea.html) which is the same region that the Scythians were allegedly from.
It is also likely that the first people with blue eyes were all black-haired rather than light-haired as ancient Europeans are found to have dark-hair and blue-eyes, indicating that light hair came separately from blue-eyes and maybe more recently as well (http://www.livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html). Where light hair comes from is still a mystery, it may have come from the Neanderthals. Modern day Europeans are likely not Aryans but Aryans admixed with Neanderthals or mutated into something else, which explains their features.
It is not that uncommon to see people in modern day India and Nepal with black hair and blue eyes just as Siddhartha Gautama was described.
But it is also important to note that The Buddha was against the caste system and someone's ethnicity does not make one an arahant. An arahant is someone who is free from mental effluents, pains, taints, hankers, fermentations (Âsavas).
He used many arguments against the caste system in the Assalayana Sutta (MN 93) mainly arguing that good deeds are good for anyone of any caste and that bad deeds are bad for anyone of any caste, also using a clever analogy that anyone of any caste can make a fire and the fire would still be a fire with a flame regardless of the person who made the fire.

"No, Master Gotama. The fire made by those born from a noble warrior clan, a brahman clan, or a royal clan... would have flame, color, & radiance, able to do whatever a fire might be needed to do. And the fire made by those born from an outcast clan, a trapper clan, a wicker workers' clan, a cartwrights' clan, or a scavengers' clan... would have flame, color, & radiance, able to do whatever a fire might be needed to do. For all fire has flame, color, & radiance, and is able to do whatever a fire might be needed to do." (Assalayana Sutta, MN 93)

Literature doesn't show the blue eyes but the beautiful brown eyes reflecting loving-kindness. We opine that he was belong to Tibeto-Burman lineage. In Pali words, his clan is Thet-kya သက်(Sanskrit- Sakya or Shakya). Thet-kya means capable man. They are also called Thar-ki-ya သာကီယ means who established city or society in teak (Tectona grands Linn) forest. When Theit-dhat-hta (Siddhartha) became Buddha, he spoke all his teaching in Pali (Magadha Language) instead of his own language as it only represent the minority in the region. Magadha language was widely used by people in Magadha (nowadays Patna in India) of Ganges valley. His clan was wiped out by Kaw-tha-la (Kosala) King 'Vidudabha Virudhaka' in BC500. The nearest lineage of his clan nowadays is Newar of Nepal.

Since the answer page cannot be linked, I reproduce here the entry in Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary (http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/) for the word śaka:

Name of a particular white-skinned tribe or race of people (in the legends which relate the contests between वसिष्ठ and विश्वामित्र the शकs are fabled to have been produced by the Cow of वसिष्ठ , from her sweat , for the destruction of विश्वामित्र's army ; in Mn. x , 44 , they are mentioned together with the पौण्ड्रकs , ओड्रs , द्रविडs , काम्बोजs , जवनs or यवनs , पारदs , पह्लवs , चीनs , किरातs , दरदs , and खशs , described by Kull. as degraded tribes of क्षत्रियs called after the districts in which they reside: according to the VP. iv , 3, king सगर attempted to rid his kingdom of these tribes , but did not succeed in destroying them all : they are sometimes regarded as the followers of शक or शालि-वाहन , and are probably to be identified with the Tartars or Indo-Scythians [Lat. Sacae] who overran India before the Aryans , and were conquered by the great विक्रमा*दित्य [q.v.] ; they really seem to have been dominant in the north-west of India in the last century before and the first two centuries after the beginning of our era) AV.Paris3. Mn. MBh. &c

If you can't read the Devanagari, comment on the part of the article which seems enlightening regarding your question and I will give you the transcription.
The word śākya is a simple derivation (patronymic) of the word śaka, meaning someone descended from the śakas. One of the names of the Buddha, śākyamuni, simply means the sakya sage. So this is why the Buddha is supposed to be of Scythian descent.
Apart from that, I wouldn't give too much on the mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇas, the signs of the great man, since these are evidently a later addition from a time of inflationary claims to buddhahood and arhatship to somehow regulate the distribution of charismatic authority. That the Lakkhana Sutta (DN 30) is a late sutta is already evident by linguistic features, metre for example.

You seem to have chosen the wrong meaning for sakya out of the various meanings given in the sanskrit dictionary.

The point is that śākya cannot be derived from śakya, which as you say means able.

And what is sakhya?

Note that Monier-Williams dictionary is from the 19th century, so some parts may be out of date with the modern understanding (or doubts).

According to modern research, Aryans most likely came from Iran. Where they came from before that, remains the favorite subject of most glorious speculations, as evidenced by many answers here.
However, while Buddha was "an arya" (noble) by upbringing, he was probably not an Aryan ethnically.
Sidhartha was born around 600 BCE, in a rural province of Koshala kingdom, located to the east of a small river, Achiravati, on a road half way between Kapilavastu, the main town of the Shakyas (the family of the father) and Devadaha, the main town of the Kolyas (the family of the mother). This place is now known as Lumbini in modern Nepal.
Koshala was a non-Aryan kingdom. The closest ethnically Aryan kingdom was Panchala, to the west. Shakyas and Kolyas  both were non-Aryan ethnicities and remote relatives of a non-Aryan dynasty that ruled Koshala.
According to Jain texts, Gotami was his mother's last name, which he used as an alias when he became a bhikshu.

Panchala was a Vedic kingdom. Draupadi, a central figure in Hindu epic Mahabahrata was from Panchala. If Vedic = Indo-Aryan, then He was an Indo-Aryan. Interesting note about Jain texts. Indo-Aryans are actually proto Indo-Iranian people and have nothing to do with Germanic or Russian origins and probably different from Mesopotamians too but having common ancestry with them.

RBK, Shakya's lands were in north-eastern Koshala, not in Panchala, which was much further west.

The best of the biped of the local area where he manifested. Definitely not European, neither American or south American. He was born in an area where now is known as norther India/Nepal, And he must have looked like the people from there, beautiful and perfect as all of us, independent of looks, I think is more related to health.
I personally don't think the mentioning of "having a noble body with 32 signs of a Great Man" is related to ethnics, neither gender or eye color, I think the context is trying to express that his conditions were a consequence of good Karma from previous lifes, and the mention of this has the purpose of exemplify that the Buddha Gautama accumulate great amount of Merit and wisdom. Also melamine is a great protector of the skin and I think most definitely his Karma allowed him to enjoy that benefit as he spend 6 years wearing little under at times scorching sun.

Skythians / Sakia Saka Sakyans (different ways to write it in English), and Sarmatians and Taurian Tavry - are synonyms for the same indo-european (arian) ethnicity scattered on a vast territory, and therefore living under different names in space and history. Of course they were a bit mixed with other ethnicities in the bordering regions, sometimes with other indo-european tribes or non-indo european.
Buddha Sakia muni was no doubt a Wiseman of the Saki tribe, because the whole Buddhist knowledge and scripts is using sanskrit/ arian words immensely close to slavic languages. Sanskrit is the closest to sanskrit among the whole indo-european family of languages. Buddha comes from budit'(see sansrit and Russian or any slavic language) to wake up - the awake one. When indian sanskritologists come to Russian villages, they do not need translator.
Buddha's tribe was just one of the aryan tribes that migrated down to India. In Vedas there are scriptures describing where they came from. Many river names or places are still in the north of Russia. Vedas is a Sanskrit and Russian Word for Knowledge. The words wissen or wisdom all come from the word vedat, meaning "to know". The words knowledge, cognition, kenntniss and znat (from russian) are words of the same root. Every linguist knows it.
Ayurveda is the folk modification of the word aryaveda - arian knowledge. That is why the most ancient and well known clinic of ayurveda in Kottakkal has the name Arya Vaidya Sala, and not Ayurveda Sala.
Every indian knows that aryans came from the north to Industan. They were tall white-skinned blonds with blue eyes, and they brought the Vedas to Hindustan. Every linguist and also every genetic specialists knows about the split of the R1 haplogroup 4500 years BC. That's when this single ethnicity of protoindoeuropeans (=aryans) got split in the north of Russia, and started migrating in different directions to the West to form the west European tribes (Celtic, Germanic, Romanic, ancestors of some Greeks tribes, or R1B haplogroup today).
The second haplogroup R1a are protoslavic tribes which are the same ethnicity known under the names as follows: Taurian, (Th)Frakian, Skythian, Sakian, and Sarmatian (migrated to spread and settle from Elba (Laba) to Japan). Some of their tribes spread further southwards to India and also to the Arabic world to Egypt, and even reached China. That's why Pharaos had blue eyes and belonged to R1a. Persians of aryan type are also R1a. That's where the world Iran comes from. Pharsi is an indo-european language. In Tibet and China there are not only excavations with R1a mummified bodies of ancient tribes, but also the cultural symbolism and texts hold many traces.
Protoindoeuropeans or Aryans everywhere spread their knowledge with them and the lifestyle where ever it matched. Tibetan Buddhist Tantra (Journey to Daikini Land) says it was inherited from Ishvara- That is Shiva or Siva or Svarog or Zeus, or Jahveh or Saboath, Savaof or Sevas- an Aryan name for God.
The protoindoeuropean tribes R1 split into R1a and R1b split and started their migration downwards from the North of Russia most probably due to the climate change. Buddha Sakia Muni was just one of them. Saki or Sakian word for scythian (ancient slavic or Russian) ancestry places and culture is known for example in the Crimea (Tavrida) - Saki - Lake for example. The same tribes you see in the North of Pakistan, or Afganistan, Kashmir, Tajikistan.
If you travel from China to Pakistan you will see plenty of white European blue-eyed and blond or fair-hair people. Looking absolutely Russian. Their language is indoeuropean, close to Russian. You will confuse them with slavic looking Russians and they will take slavic looking Russians travelling there for their own, if they get dressed typical of these places. These tribes have million different names there. But it is the same ethnicity with some linguistic and of course cultural modifications throughout history. But everywhere you find the same main elements.


text:
What is gained by learning Vipassana meditation in long retreats?
My understanding of S.N. Goenka's method for learning Vipassana meditation is that the student is introduced to meditation in a 10 day retreat in which he or she sits in silent meditation for almost all his or her waking hours. This seems  a daunting way to introduce meditation to a newcomer. Also, for many people, it could be difficult to arrange for 10 days without family or work obligations. Thus, I ask: What does the student gain by through an introduction to meditation via a "marathon" retreat?

The question seems rather too opinion-based to really provide an answer. I personally have good experience with Goenka's Vipassana. Apart from a strict 10-day retreat really offering a good opportunity to overcome some initial troubles it has the advantage, that you don't have to pay a fixed sum of money in advance for something you do not yet know.

My initial impression was this was a rant partially disguised as a question.  It would be beneficial to reformulate the question based on the potential merit of novices attending long retreats.

@DharmaEater: While I obviously consider Goenka's introduction to be a bit extreme for most people, the question wasn't meant as a rant.  I've rephrased it in an effort to make it less rant-like.  If there's further discussion to be had, maybe we should move to the chat.

@Anthony: The effort to improve the title is appreciatated, but I've rolled back the edit as the new title missed the nature of the question

It is a daunting introduction, very few people could do this. But if you want something enough, you will pay any price. To be immersed in something, anything, for ten days with no practical or other distractions is a huge gift to give yourself. You could learn painting in ten days, or piano, or a new language... or insight practice. Otherwise, any of those things could take years to get as far at learning. The only question is whether this particular approach is right for you.

To put it succinctly you need to rub two pieces of wood long enough to get fire.
Likewise you need to meditate continuously for some stretch of time to see results.
As Goenka says "Continuity of practice is the secret of success".

Good analogy with the rubbing together of wood to create fire. +1.

But if rubbing together for 10 days was just the prelude to rubbing for an hour or hours a day for years, it seems like a less good analogy. I would say it is more like starting a new learning process: immersion, then continued practice thereafter. Fire suddenly happens, and when it does, you can stop rubbing. If it only took 10 days, a lot more people would do it.

Q.What is gained by learning Vipassana meditation in long retreats?
A. You get to observe your mind and body. By observing sensations arising in your mind and body and knowing that it is impermanent, you learn not to react to it as you did in the past. So, as you practice the art of non reaction to your sensation, slowly then you become free from all sufferings.
They key here is "non-reaction", no war whatsoever with mind (craving and aversion). Just acknowledging the sensation as they are and non reaction to it is my friend, the only way to liberation. Non-reaction again i stress which i believe is the heart of this technique and logically is the only way to liberation.
You learn this technique in a 10 day retreat. Its up to you to practice the technique for rest of your life and later after you get well versed in this technique 24 hours a day.
Note: If you are going to vipassana retreat as taught by Mr. Goenka, it is tough retreat and you have to work hard but very "gently" to train your mind. It will not be easy but will be very worthwhile if you understand the technique properly. I just give you sketch, the retreat will give you whole picture.
Wheel of dhamma is spinning, since it was first launched into action by samma sam buddha.

But is it better to do a 10 day retreat than for example a weekend retreat, or just a weekly sit? If so, why?

I am no expert to comment on this but I'll advise you to join 10 day retreat. weekly sit are for inspiration, which i personally think. First rightly understand the technique and later apply it. If you do both correctly.....your highway towards liberation is open but you yourself have to walk all the way.

Thanks for the feedback. Are you saying that the 10 day retreat is the best (or only?) way to learn the technique? Also, in earlier iterations of this question, I discussed the difficulty many people would have getting 10 days away from work and family obligations (not to mention travel to the retreat site) and asked if it was worth all that.

It is best way to learn this technique and for 10 days you develop understanding and just practice the technique. It is worth every minute if you properly understand the technique and implement it. If you just understand the technique and you dont use it then its of no use. But a proper understanding is also equally important for right implementation of technique.

Further if you are planning to go to the retreat i advise you to refrain from any expectations of gaining. We reach dhamma centers so that we loose our old habit of craving and aversion(tug and pull of mind) and recondition our mind not to react to sensations of pain and pleasure. All benefits arising are natural by products. All the best to you!

Background. 15 years ago I went to a 10 day Vipassana Retreat. I lasted 4 days. 10 years ago I went again and finished the Retreat. I went for a 3 day Retreat this last winter. It doesn't seem to get easier. I have learned something different each time. I had been meditating 30 mins. early in the day (anapana not Vipassana) 4 months ago I decided to meditate 40 mins.(Vipassana) twice a day. I am noticing subtle changes .... changes that are giving me insight into myself. I see thoughts before they become words. I see my thoughts before becoming engulfed in them. It has given me space to see before I talk or act. I am still a victim of my thoughts at times .... but experiencing these subtle changes and the results has made all my effort a pittance in comparison to what I am starting to realize. Perhaps I am a slow learner .... and my token gesture for daily meditation was not sufficient to realize progress. The difficulty in the 10 day is part of the the process ... for me. It helped me realize that I am capable of overcoming my thoughts. I always had been one for short term rewards. Maybe until 4 months ago .... I wasn't ready for a more dedicated practice. Now I am beginning to make a conscious effort in my daily life. Body sensations and anapana when not doing sitting meditation are something I'm trying to use more in day to day life ..... I still forget much more often than not. It's okay. I have seen progress. Part of the process of progress is being okay with where I am now.

A very insightful answer. Thanks for sharing and welcome to Buddhism SE.

You gain an intense and unbroken continuety in meditative practice. That can be a deep and profound way to experience the dhamma through practical realization.
Especially in beginning of ones practice it is useful to get a point of reference. Buddhism is big and wide and holds a tremendous amount of teachings. One can read book after book but without any reference-point to reality, i.e. experiental knowledge gained through insight meditation, one can easily fall into the "believe or not-believe" category.
By doing an intense retreat with a teacher one will achieve insights for oneself that will serve to make one develop the first path factor of the noble eightfold path which is "Samma Ditthi, Right View". That is like our steering-wheel on the path.
If one does not achieve any insights on the retreat one will at least get a good feeling of what buddhism and meditation really is. One will also have a teacher to interact with and thats a great thing since in beginning of practice there will be a lot of questions.
Other than that one will learn a lot about oneself in such an intense retreat. One will learn about ones own limitations, sitting postures, habits, aversions, likes, wantings etc. When one spends so much time with oneself one is bound to experience the content of ones mind. That can be a profound experience, even just to get a glimpse of what really happens inside ones own mind.
One begins to see that phenomena are causally connected, that phenomena can cause new phenomena to arise and that objects will not spawn if the supporting conditions are not there or if they fall away. In an intense retreat like the 10-day retreat one could also get to see the impermanent nature of phenomena on a deeper level than the day to day level. So there are definitely a lot of advantages of these retreats.
There are also disadvantages as with everything in life. Maybe one has bodily limitations that limit one from sitting for long hours in the same position. Maybe one is stressed out and cannot focuz the mind. The point is that even if there are "bad" things that will affect one on the retreat one will get to know these things and be able to work with them. That is powerful because how often do lay-people have the oppertunity to really work deep on themselves in everyday life?

I've done 6 days of the 10 day Goenka course after which I left due to irreconcilable philosophical disagreements both with Goenka and with the teacher.  Nevertheless, I found the course to be a powerful way to improve my meditation.  After meditating for 12 hours a day with no distractions, I found it very easy to meditate for an hour a day with the usual daily distractions.  10 days of meditation is what led Siddartha to enlightenment.

It is a big overstatement to claim that Siddhartha needed only 10 days. It was just a culmination of his long journey which started long before he was born as a prince. In Jataka tales one can read about Buddha's numerous previous lives.

I would be interested (and I think others probably would be, too) to hear details about your experience, both the good and the bad. I don't want to hijack this thread but it seems relevant.

One need not force oneself for longer "marathon" retreats, but one must understand that the ultimate goal of Vipassana (to attain Nirvana) is very very high compared to normal human beings who do not practice Vipassana.
It takes as much as 24X7X52X7 hours (i.e. 7 years of continuous and uninterrupted Vipassana meditation) of meditation to reach the state of Nirvana.
So, it is upto us to accept this final goal, and to try to attain it in whichever possible way ...
Metta

Thank you for your answer.  Unfortunately, other than completing 7 days x 12 to 16 hours of that time to nirvana done, I don't see from  your answer what is gained from Goenka's approach vs. a shorter introductory experience.

I was listening to a discussion just two nights ago on this subject and the comment , from a very experienced meditator was that Goenka's medutation does not have samadhi

That is correct. He starts with vispasana from the get-go.

This should be expectable, since "Samadhi" and "Vipassana" are two different types of meditiation. It would be malicious if Goenka would "sell" training experience in "Vipassana" and in fact would you lead to "Samadhi"-meditation. So what's the point of your remark?

Actually, if you watch the first video (20min long) at https://www.dhamma.org/, he says that the first 3 days are specifically devoted to just observing the breath. That's samatha, right? The aim is to sharpen the mind and allow your observations to become more acute. This then leads to Vipassana proper.


text:
Scheduling Formal Meditation
Is it considered better practice to stick to a strict schedule of walking/sitting meditation even if doing so will involve trying to settle into meditation while being plagued with hindrances (pañca nīvaraṇāni)? Or just wait until things are calmer and conditions are better even if that isn't until the next day?
I.e., is there value to just forcing yourself (as people sometimes have to do to engage in physical exercise regularly) or would the poor mind state negate your efforts anyway?
(I practice vipassana meditation if that makes a difference.) Thanks for any help.

I would view the answer to this through the lens of right effort. Your practice should aim to be formal enough so that you stick to it and fluid enough that you don't just end up going through the motions. That said I would err on the side of regular times and being a bit stricter with yourself - particularly if one is just starting out (not certain that applies to you).
As far as hindrances go I wouldn't let that stop from either meditation practice. I've been advised to use the hindrances as an object for meditation so could potentially led to some interesting insight.
More generally, at various points I have been give various advice to help maintain an effective practice. So in no particular order

Find a particular time of day that is better for you to practice. Typically this would be early mornings or late evenings but doesn't have to be
Get a place for meditation. Set up a shrine if that helps but have a spot. Keep your cushions set up so you can just slide onto them when the time for meditation is there
It's better to meditate for 5 minutes than not at all. Sometimes you can just sit and connect with yourself and others as best you can. It's enough.
If you can't meditate one day don't beat yourself up about it. Be very kind and patient with yourself. It's a long journey.

Generally it's the middle way which seems easier said than done. But that's the middle way for you.

+1 for being kind to oneself. Very important. Forgiving for missing out on a meditation (or however many) makes it easier to pick up on the next day.

According to the Maha-Assapura Sutta a practitioner abandons the hindrances before working on insight.
Practice samatha meditation until the five hindrances dissipate.

Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness....
Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will...
Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light....
Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled....
Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities....
Seeing that they [the five hindrances] have been abandoned within him, he becomes glad. Glad, he becomes enraptured. Enraptured, his body grows tranquil. His body tranquil, he is sensitive to pleasure. Feeling pleasure, his mind becomes concentrated.

After abandoning the five hindrances work on vipassana. Some days you may use your entire meditation working on calming and removing the five hindrances through single point meditation.

With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations.
He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress...
These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.

It is important to work both samatha and vipassana rather than skipping samatha and waiting for days when vipassana is easier and feels more natural.

In my opinion, vipassana should not be forced at all.
Forcing oneself belongs to samatha, targeted at developing pliancy of mind.
However, according to instructions I received, even samatha should not be forced as much as to develop antipathy towards meditation.
Luckily, vipassana (unlike samatha) is a kind of meditation that can be done "in action", without sitting. So even resisting meditation can be turned into meditation, by paying close attention to the experience of resistance.

I personally have found that if I don't schedule sitting meditation into my busy busy life, I fail to do it as often as I should.  What's more, I have to schedule it daily in the morning to be certain I won't be weak and procrastinate until it's too late.
I also practice meditation any time I have to wait for something.  For a delightful introduction to momentary meditation see How to Meditate in a Moment.


text:
Do all Buddhists abstain from alcohol?
I've been to a nice restaurant (pictured below) where the bar was decorated with statues of the Buddha. Given the 5th precept and all; this seemed a bit odd. Would it be correct to surmise that the 5th precept is understood in different ways among Buddhists?

The golden guy on the lower left isn't Buddha, but Budai (aka Hotei), who was an eccentric Chan monk and the Japanese god of happiness, although some traditions identify him with the future Buddha. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/Budai).  The Gautama Buddhas are all literally above intoxication in the photo.  So you could view this as being correct and not disrepectful of either the Buddha or contradicting The Precepts.  If you wanted to.

@KevinJohnsrude, that's an interesting observation (regarding Hotei). I'm going to post it as a separate question so it will be easier for interested people to locate the information.

In Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, the 5th precept is interpreted mostly as 'do not get intoxicated by alcohol and drugs' for non-ordained practitioners, meaning that it's up to you to know how much you can drink without affecting your mind. Ordained monks are still supposed to take the literal interpretation of the 5th precept and fully abstain from alcohol and mind-intoxicating drugs (except on the bi-weekly purification ceremony known as Tsog).
Of course, many people really don't know exactly how much they can consume until their minds get affected. That's why the more literal interpretation of the 5th precept is recommended: put it simply, if you don't know how your mind gets affected by alcohol/drugs, then abstain from it.
Also note that the whole point of the 5th precept is not to impose any kind of 'puritan morality'. It's just because if your goal of becoming a Buddhist practitioner is to train your mind, it's a bit pointless to consume anything that makes you less aware, less mindful, and pay less attention. Morality is not the point here!
As for the 'right' or 'wrong' way of using Buddha statues as decoration, that's a really tough question. If the bar owners are beginning practitioners, I would say that they should take their refuge vows a bit more seriously and refrain from using representations of the Buddhas as 'decoration'. If they are enlightened beings, then I would say this would be just a very clever trick to get people interested in Buddhism: by looking at the statue of a Buddha, someone without any connection with Buddhism might ask what the statue is about and get interested in the Buddhadharma — so forging a connection with the Dharma that way. They whole point of having representations of the Buddha all over the place is not to remind existing practitioners, but to get non-practitioners interested in asking more questions about it and eventually developing an interest in the Dharma :) But, to be very honest, I would be wary of using that argument to place Buddha statues in a bar...
If the bar owners are not practitioners at all, then, well, I'd say the same applies. Somehow they made a connection with the Dharma — somehow the Buddha statue appealed to them. And somehow this very weak connection with the Dharma will endure — if not in this life, then in the next. So I'd be happy to see that someone who is not a Buddhist at all to pick, among millions of different choices, a statue of the Buddha as a worthwhile 'decoration'. There will be some benefit to them :)

Gwyneth is correct. So as to the OP's original question, the answer is No, Buddhist practitioners (laypersons) do not necessarily need to abstain from alcohol. They do need to practice being mindful, so too much alcohol would likely get in the way of that.

This is oftentimes an intensely debated precept.
Yes, the fifth precept is understood differently by different people, i.e., sometimes people interpret it to mean abstaining from all drugs or all intoxicants. It usually always includes abstaining from intoxication and heedlessness from alcoholic drink though; some people may interpret this as allowing them to drink in moderation.
If I had to guess, the person that was responsible for putting those Buddha statues in that bar thought they were cool and has no idea about the precepts.

I think it's an interesting question and certainly different people have different views. Royokan the Japanese Zen poet wrote about getting drunk amongst his writings about being a dedicated zen practitioner

"I send one of the children to buy some country wine/ And after I'm
  drunk, toss off a few lines of calligraphy."

(referenced from the same wiki article)
I don't think that anyone would doubt Ryokan's commitment with or without a glass of sake.

Royokan may have had a commitment to Zen as he wished to interpret it, but that has nothing to do with the Fifth Noble Precept, or, indeed, the Buddha's teachings.

That's a row of Chinese Buddha's and Bodhisattva's, so this appears to be a Chinese restaurant.
Monastics have always been held to the strictest standards-- there was a very concrete, this-worldly consequence for breaking the precepts-- you would be kicked out of the sangha (or more likely punished by some other means).
Where the rules are less straight forward is for lay followers. Upasaka are encouraged to follow the five precepts, but if they can't then they are urged to follow just 4, if not, then 3, and so on. And if they can't follow any precepts, lay followers are urged to at least take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. I take this to mean that ethics in Buddhism is a practice where you start where you are and over time you get better, as opposed to ascribing to all the rules and following them rigorously on day one.
As for if this is offensive, depends on where you are. I would guess this is offensive in Sri Lanka and Thailand. As a US convert, it doesn't bother me at all, this restaurant didn't do this with the intention of offending old ladies in Sri Lanka.
But in the US, I give them credit for actually being aware of customs regarding home shrines-- it is not uncommon to see suggestions that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas be put in the highest place in the house. This makes me think the person who put them there is a believer and not just decorating with curios.

Just to be clear - a monk or a nun is not kicked out of the Sangha just for breaking one of the Five Precepts.  Monks and nuns have a thousand additional rules.  But four of them, the parajikas, or rules of defeat, are so serious that a monk or nun who breaks one of the four is no longer a monk or a nun, and cannot be a monk or a nun in this lifetime.
The four parajika are:
Committing murder (the killing of a human, in the womb or out);
Stealing;
Having sex (masturbation is a lesser offense);
Claiming to have one of the four attainments knowing that he or she does not.

All Theravada Buddhists abstain from Alcohol. This is well explained in "THE FIVE PRECEPTS" which is a very good read on the 5 precepts.

The fifth precept reads: Surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi, “I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.” The word meraya means fermented liquors, sura liquors which have been distilled to increase their strength and flavor. The world majja, meaning an intoxicant, can be related to the rest of the passage either as qualified by sura,meraya or as additional to them. In the former case the whole phrase means fermented and distilled liquors which are intoxicants, in the latter it means fermented and distilled liquors and other intoxicants. If this second reading is adopted the precept would explicitly include intoxicating drugs used non-medicinally, such as the opiates, hemp, and psychedelics. But even on the first reading the precept implicitly proscribes these drugs by way of its guiding purpose, which is to prevent heedlessness caused by the taking of intoxicating substances.

Also might be of interest: How Alcohol Affects the ‘No-Go’ Receptors in Your Brain
By Nathaniel Scharping

Honorable Suminda, if the latter case were true (and other intoxicants), isn't there a word in Pali for "and" which would be there?  (I know only a smattering of Pali, but it seems like there should be a word for "and").

Rather than the "fifth precept", I find it stranger that it seems to transgress "right livelihood".
Sankha's answer notwithstanding, I like to (I am happy to) see a statue of the Buddha if I walk into a restaurant.
A few of the "10 bulls" commentaries imply that Buddhism and alcohol can, perhaps they hope, co-exist. For example,

X
  Entering the City with Bliss-Bestowing Hands
His humble cottage door is closed, and the wisest knows him not. No
  glimpses of his inner life are to be caught; for he goes on his own
  way without following the steps of the ancient sages. Carrying a gourd
  he goes out into the market; leaning against a stick he comes home. He
  is found in company with wine-bibbers and butchers; he and they are
  all converted into Buddhas.
Barechested and barefooted, he comes out into the marketplace;
Daubed with mud and ashes, how broadly he smiles!
There is no need for the miraculous power of the gods,
For he touches, and lo! the dead trees come into full bloom.

Some versions of that show him with a "gourd". When I first saw that I thought it meant a "wine container", because this is how it was published in Paul Reps' book:

Comment: Inside my gate, a thousand sages do not know me. The beauty of my garden is invisible. Why should one search for the footprints of the patriarchs? I go to the market place with my wine bottle and return home with my staff. I visit the wine shop and the market, and everyone I look upon becomes enlightened.

But the footnote in this reference says that in the sentence, " Carrying a gourd[2] he goes out into the market, leaning against a staff[3] he comes home", the gourd is a "Symbol of emptiness (sunyata)".

It is sad to see mistranslations such as that. It is fortunate that the footnote had a better translation, and that you noticed it.

It's disrespectful to use buddha statues for decorative purposes in bars or anywhere else. It creates bad Karma for the person who does it.
Yes, the 5th precept covers both drugs and alcohol consumption for non medicinal purposes.

The Fifth Precept does not distinguish between medicinal and other purposes.  It also does not specifically mention drugs, though this is a reasonable extrapolation.

Drugs are covered in the phrase "majjappamadatthana" and I believe allowance is given for medicinal purposes in another place in Vinaya. Can't recall the exact place.

"majjappadamadatthana" is referring to sura-mereya.  So the precept does not specifically cover anything else that is majjappadamadatthana, besides Surameraya.  I have heard from monks (I don't know the place either) that there is an allowance for marijuana for a specific illness.  That there needed to be an allowance for it suggests that the normal case was that it was not allowed.

No, Sura-meraya is given as an example.  The real spirit of the precept is majjappadamadatthana. Therefore any substance that causes heedlessness is covered.

"Spirit" in the context of a translation means it's not the actual literal words. So the correct response would have been, "Yes, you're correct, but I think the spirit of the passage means ..."

I would have responded that way if I thought you are correct.:) But I don't think it is meant to be interpreted the way you are interpreting.

In Buddhism, drinking alcohols itself is not considered to be a sinful action. However, when you get drunk and lose control of your mind, you go around and hurt yourself and/or someone else. That would be a bad karma to do so, which is why drinking alcohol or taking drugs are actions that should be abstained.
However, Buddhists who are elders or those who enforce rules in their own community may actively prohibit their fellows to not take alcohols at all at their discretion.

"Sin" (an offense against God) is not, strictly speaking, part of the Buddha's teachings.  But the Fifth Precept prohibits the drinking of alcohol.
The reason elder Buddhists may enforce the rules in their own community is because they are following the teachings of the Buddha.

I would argue that the fifth precept does not exactly prohibits the drinking of alcohol, but rather to avoid or abstain from drinking of alcohol to the point of losing the control of one's mind. Since each individual has different tolerance level of alcohol before he/she becomes drunk, it would be easier to avoid alcohol altogether as part of the training/practicing mindfulness.

All practicing Buddhists abstain from alcohol.  It is disrespectful to the Buddha for a restaurant to display a statue of the Buddha in such a setting, but sadly that type of thing is all too common.


text:
Does not keeping a promise violate the precept on lying? What if I promised myself?
In my opinion, if you promise something to someone and don't keep it, it is equivalent to lying. But what if the promise is to myself and I don't keep it; is it violating the precept on lying?
Does the lying precept apply to oneself, i.e not lying to yourself?
Sutta / Vinaya references would be very much appreciated.
Edit: I meant one vowed/ promised with honest intention at the time did it, but later change mind and don't want to keep it anymore

I wonder if it is proper to include your opinion like this as a premise. Your opinion that breaking a promise is equivalent to lying does not accord with Theravada Buddhism, afaik. They are two very different acts. Maybe better just to ask whether lying to yourself constitutes breaking the fourth precept.

It should not be changed to failing to keep a promise, as that is not what I meant. I assumed one promised with good intent but later change mind and does not want keep it anymore intentionally, not failing to keep

In order to answer this sort of question, you have to be clear on what the precepts are and what they are not. They are a set of intentional statements of will to keep a finite set of basic moral precepts. They are not an all-encompassing treatise on morality.
So, the fourth precept, as Sankha Kulathantille says in his answer, relates to a specific type of speech; it does not include all types of wrong speech, it only refers to speech that is intended to deceive another person, as per the Cunda Sutta (AN 10.176) for example:

There is the case where a certain person engages in false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty [i.e., a royal court proceeding], if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I know.' If he does know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I have seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' Thus he consciously tells lies for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of a certain reward.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html

Therefore, your premise,

if you promise something to someone and don't keep it, it is equivalent to lying.

is not in accordance with a strict Buddhist understanding of lying, since there need not be at any time during the change of heart an intention to deceive.
As to whether breaking a promise is wrong, Thanissaro has a discussion of this in his BMC:

The Mahavagga (III.14.1-14) imposes a dukkata on the act of making a promise with pure intentions but later breaking it. Since the texts make no mention of any circumstances beyond one's control that would exempt one from that penalty, a bhikkhu should be very careful of how he states his plans for the future. A special instance of breaking a promise -- accepting an invitation to a meal but then not going -- is treated under Pacittiya 33.

Interestingly, the Mahavagga passage in question does use the word for lying (musāvādā):

Nanu mayā, moghapurisa, anekapariyāyena musāvādo garahito, musāvādā veramaṇī pasatthā?
"Has not falsehood been reproved, and abstinence from falsehood been praised by me in many ways?"

But the Buddha only charges him with a dukkata rather than a pacittiya (which would be the case in a true lie), so a distinction is clearly made.
So, first point to make:
Breaking a promise is wrong, but outright lying is worse. Breaking a promise does not, therefore, break the first precept as it is understood in Theravada Buddhism.
Now, on to your question :)
"Lying to oneself" would literally mean knowing something to be false and yet telling yourself that it is true, with the intention that you should believe it to be true. Psychologically, it is certainly possible that over time you could come to convince yourself of something, but only if you let yourself believe it to be true, in which case you would no longer simultaneously know it to be false. This sort of self-deception goes on all the time in our world, of course, but is it lying?
First of all, the five precepts all require physical or verbal acts to be broken; morality in its conventional form always refers only to physical and mental commissions or omissions; mental immorality is considered a lapse of concentration, not morality. (I don't have a reference for this, but if I can find one, I'll pass it along). So you'd have to actually tell yourself out loud, knowing that what you were saying is false, intending to make yourself believe something to be true. I guess that is theoretically possible, but in most cases I think it would be difficult to convince yourself that you were seriously capable of such deception.
More common, I'd say, would be the simple intention to cultivate a belief in what is false; rather than trying to deceive yourself, per se, you simply want to cultivate a distorted belief; e.g. believing that a loved one is still alive, because it's too difficult to acknowledge they are dead. The difference here is there is no breach of trust; you are accepting that something is a lie, but deciding to believe it anyway.
A similar situation would be in the case of hypnosis, where a hypnotist tells the patient to imagine themselves in certain situations, or helps them convince themselves they were never afraid of something, etc., e.g. "You have never been afraid of spiders." The patient allows the hypnotist to make them believe something that is false; the hypnotist cannot be considered guilty of lying to the patient, as the patient knows it is false but simply wants to change their belief.
In short, lying to yourself, while it may be damaging, can't be considered truly lying, since it doesn't involve a breach of trust or an act of deceptive communication. Self-deception is voluntary and occurs after the 'lie' has already been told.

Many thanks, Bhante, for your detailed analysis. It cleared many doubts in me.___  But I still think telling a promise with the intention to deceive is a lying.____   And if I promise to myself but not keep it, it shows ignorance and weakness but if I didn't say it, it is just a thought, it is not a lie since lying needs verbal action.

Yes, the way I understand the fourth precept is: lying to myself is still lying. However, in my view, breaking the promise is only lying if done deliberately. If at the moment of making the promise I believed I would do it, then it was simply a case of ignorance on my part. Ignorance is Ok, as long as we learn from mistakes. To people who made serious mistakes in their past, Buddha suggested to admit their faults and stop feeling remorse but concentrate on being more skilfull from now on.

"VIJJA -CARANA SAMPANO" is a quality of the Buddha. He says as He acts and He does what He says. Only a fully enlightened Buddha can keep to his word 100% all the time. So breaking a promise is not a lie, unless you had the intention of lying when you made the promise. In that case, you have already lied, even before breaking the promise. Lying to oneself is not technically possible as you always know what you are upto.
Four conditions must be met to
break this precept.
i) The statement must be untrue.
ii) There must be an intention to deceive.
iii) An effort must be made to deceive.
iv) The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed

But he could have intention to change his words into false at the moment of breaking promise.

Being whimsical is not the same as lying

No, I meant person could have intent to make his promise (his words) false at the later time. (When he break promise intentionally, and not by the lack of capability.) This is not unpredictability. Don't just review moment of telling promise, there is also moment of breaking it, and at that that moment you could deliberately make your speech false. Percept didn't say that only moment of telling matters. Plus, how could you be truthful at the moment of telling promise if future in truly unknown?

Making a promise is one moment and breaking or deciding to break the promise is another. If one didn't have an intention of deceiving at the moment when one makes the promise, it's not a lie. Deciding to break the promise later is simply an act of changing one's mind.
ex: I promise to give you some money and later I find out that you are a drug addict. So I change my mind. Or I promise to lend you my car and later I find out that you are a car thief. So I change my mind.That's not a lie.

Yes, it's two moments. But, like in a killing - one moment of intention (or order to subordinate to kill), other moment of victim's death, but both play in karma. Thus, no problem for moments being separated in lying too. One moment a speech is told, other moment it became a falsehood.

When he made the promise there's no intention to deceive or trick the person. Later deciding not to keep the promise doesn't make it a lie unless he has the intention to deceive when he decides against it.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

In my own tradition — Nyingma school of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism — vows/promises made to oneself are definitely binding, and, as @Sankha Kulathantille has explained, if those four conditions were present, that would certainly break the vow. And, of course, breaking the vow has a consequence.
However, I think that there is quite a lot to be said about this particular instance of 'making vows to oneself'. As @Sankha Kulathantille has stated so clearly, only a Buddha can keep their vows 100% of the time. For us beginners in the path, we have purification practices, where we remember our vows (yes, even those made to ourselves), notice which ones have been broken, understand the circumstances why they were broken, apply an antidote (if we promised to do X but never did it, then we strive to do X), and make a new promise to ourselves to refrain from breaking the vow in the future. Of course, that doesn't give you the 'right' to break the vow over and over again, in the hope of purifying it — that doesn't work (it would be just hypocrisy — to ourselves!!).
But as @zvolkov has pointed out, it's pointless to feel remorse all the time for having broken a promise to ourselves. Instead, we just have to recognize that we're not yet Buddhas and do our best to stick to our promises from now on.
On the other side of the coin, it's also pointless to make a vow to oneself without having the intention, or the ability, to keep it. It's far better to reflect on that vow, very seriously, and work with yourself so that you come closer and closer to the point where taking that vow will not be seen as a 'burden', but something you do with pleasure.

Keeping Silas and train in virtue requires being honest to oneself at first place so that it is of use for path and fruits. If approaching Vinaya and and virtue like a lawyer it's of nobodies use.
Thought that my person will better refrain from contributing something here he changed his mind, trusting that it is of use for some and something he is currently able to do. Comming accross similar question this days, my person tried to give a graspable answer for those willing to increase faith in the Dhamma:
Is changing your mind same as lying? Breaking promises

asked by Digity  on DW:
Suppose someone asks you to do something that you're on the fence about doing, but you agree to it anyway. Now suppose time passes and you regret the initial agreement and decide not to follow through on it, but give some sort of explanation for why you aren't. Do you consider that a form of lying, since you told the person something that you didn't follow through on?

In short:
Yes, breaking promis is unskilfull and a misconduct in regard of virtue.
If done deliberatly it's a classic ly, what ever reson it was.
If changing one mind later, it's false dealing similar to break a contract.
If a promise can not be fullfilled, out of reasons they are not in the sphere of the promis-maker and the promis-maker did also not possible had a chance to foresee this, than it is not a fault.
When one looks carefully and honest, one might see that most of the promises he/she did and did not fullfill have been faults.
A very serious matter is the matter of vows. Think how many take precepts, knowing that they will break them. Doing such is breaking the precepts while asking after them.
Changing ones mind from unskillful to skillful is not wrong, nevertheless one will face consequences of the breaking of promises, since mostly not understandable for others.
That preasure is mostly the hindrence for changing ones mind to a better.
Lets see, maybe my person is able to record a short talk on it.
Talk on it: Record of words on it (amr-file)
Maybe useful in addition:

Success/fail in trade. (Link see origin)
Depts, but to whom? (Link see origin)

One may look also at the source of it and use its possibility to discuss and ask further (links could not be given):
[Q&A] Is changing your mind same as lying? Breaking promises
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordly gain.)


text:
Is action a form of discontent?
I know Buddhism stresses the importance of being a content person, but I can't help thinking that any action such as walking or even shifting my foot is a form of dissatisfaction for current moment. Why would I change anything if I am content?

I would suggest that Buddhism does not promote the importance of being a contented person, especially by suppressing any feelings, perceptions or other parts of experience. Instead, by learning to know dissatisfaction (suffering, dukkha) very well, we notice that the discontentment is separate from the experience (i.e. pain is pain, sickness is sickness, it's our minds that adds dissatisfaction on top of that).
By practicing to recognize dissatisfaction, we can then learn to put that dissatisfaction aside, and simply experience each moment as it is (painful, pleasurable or neutral). Once we are able to put dissatisfaction aside, contentment naturally arises.
I would like to stress that Buddhism does not promote becoming a contented person - this holding on to "me as a person being contented" is also a cause for discontentment, since it is certain to change. Once the situation changes ("me" no longer being content), there's dissatisfaction - my view of myself being contented does not fit with the experience I am having.
Walking or shifting your foot is not inherently dissatisfactory. It is what it is, what you experience are the sensations of lifting the foot, changes in pressure on the footsole, and so on. The experience can be pleasurable, neutral or unpleasant, but that does not have to equal dissatisfaction in that moment. Our minds add that on to it. Once we're able to let go of the added layer of judging the experience as satisfactory or unsatisfactory (it shouldn't be this way or this is great), contentment is with us, here and now.

There is a nice Zen saying:

Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water, after Enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.

Overall, the view and motivation is the key. We need to accept that we have a conditioned body and it is actually very wise to sometimes walk into the kitchen to eat or use the bathroom from time to time!
In Mahayana tradition, practitioners take the Bodhisattva Vow and they promise they will not reach enlightenment until they help to liberate all other sentient beings. With that motivation, they will view their actions as means to benefit others. They will nurture their bodies so they can have good health and long lives and will engage in various activities to bring people happiness. There is an infinite number of acts of kindness we can do to our relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues or even strangers.

Intentional bodily movements could generate Karma for an unenlightened person. But not for Arahaths. Read about
"Kiriya Citta".

The discontent goes the other way:
It is not how much you own and can still keep them in possession that makes one content.

It is not that you have a beautiful wife, who at that moment is not
  arguing with you on certain things, and the children that you have who
  are, at that moment, still obedient to you that make you happy /
  content.
It is not the car that you have and is still in very good condition
  that makes one content.
Because the above can be one day lost. Let say your wife decided to
  leave, your kids, who you love so much, decided to do something
  opposite what you expected them to, the car broke down.

Until then, you become discontent. So in the Buddhist view, it is about trying not to "acquire / own" so much, to which one eventually forms a attachment.
It is not about being able to own them and be content because they are still in your possession / returning you the amount of "love" you expect / and are still in good condition.
All of the above, except the car (but even still can be possible) are required that they "love" you back for the contentedness to take place.
The car can't speak or feel, but one would usually form this "imaginary" reciprocals for the car itself -

"Hey, washed you up nicely yesterday, in and out, spotless, oil
  changed, and you run like a champ. Good, I love you" as if the car
  returned your TLC by "running good" itself.

Back to the foot:
When one is discontent or irritated, it is normally shown in his actions, facial expressions and body movements. The eye twitches, a sudden fist pump, the foot moves, hugging the head etc.
But isn't doing all that a form of discontent?
How many times do we see others, who in a very uncomfortable situation, still cast a smile on his face, but when in fact he is affected by the situation and thus discontent? Yes, they are there everyday. And are they content, just because he still smiles when he normally shouldn't.
So, it is not about the fact that you decided to go for a walk or move a foot that shows that you are discontent - because they might be of another forms.

Some go play basketball, when he is discontent.  Some go lift weights.
Some call up their girlfriends and after a couple rounds of drink,
  decided to fly to Vegas out of the blue.
Or, some just simply sit there and pretentiously smile and shred tears
  within.
Or, some start picking a fight with someone for no reason or
  try to find a reason to argue.

So, the signs / the reactions here is "detrimental" and secondary.
It is rather about what being content is and otherwise.
Owning less. Acquire less. Require thusly less. The less the attachment.
Compassion is different. One doesn't attach to it, but is still doing things that is benefitting the other(s) and beings.

Being content in Buddhism is when you get some experience which you evaluate and pleasant, unpleasant or neutral you do not further react this. You maintain equanimity of your mind being aware of the arising and passing of sensations.
If you are mindful of your body you will see that there are various sensations. Some times movement is prompted to get rid of sensation which might be due to staying in one position, or get rid of itching sensation, etc. This is as you mentioned to get rid of unsatisfactory in many cases. Some actions are triggered by habits, hence not necessarily to get rid of the unsatisfactoryness.


text:
Would a world full of good Buddhists seeking enlightenment would never have developed technology?
If realizing the true nature of mind is the ultimate goal that drives us to enlightenment, constant blizz and the end of suffering, what would be the interest of developing technology?
Technology makes life easier and helps us live longer, but why would this be of benefit if happiness comes from within ourselves regardless of the life conditions surrounding us?
To put the question within a context, imagine a different setting from that of today. Go back in the past to a point far away from the industrial evolution and the invention of complex machinery. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense if we ask the question within today's context given that we live in an era of great technological advancement. There is no interest on going back (or at least I think so).
Technology has driven many advances that have considerably improved our daily life, but at the same time it is technology that has driven a society of consumerism. Besides, technological development comes from people who are "thirsty" of knowledge, the main root of dukkha (one of those words difficult to translate, but that it is often translated as "suffering"). So the main root of technology may be also the main root of suffering.
This question arises from a personal thought: If the humanity had been composed of good Buddhists seeking enlightenment from the "beginning of intelligent human kind", we would still be living a simple life in the jungle and perfectly happy as happiness is within ourselves and should not be conditioned by the outer world. All of this without great technological advancements.

This question requires quite a bit of speculation, since it's quite uncertain what would have happened if...

Voting to close. Counterfactuals such as this are largely opinion-based, very broad, and don't really have a basis in expert analysis. Especially given the subjectivity of a "Good Buddhist."

What is the harm on that?

While it may solicit interesting discussion, it is simply not a good fit for a Stack Exchange website, which is designed to solicit answers to relatively specific questions, not to be a general purpose forum. See also Gorilla vs. Shark.

The minimum standard of a good Buddhist would be someone who has taken refuge in the triple gem and keeps to the 5 precepts. Such a person wouldn't necessarily lack enthusiasm to develop technology.


text:
Significance of touching forheads in Tibetan Buddhism (Karma Kagyu)?
I have visited a local group of Karma Kagyu practitioners once, hearing a Dharma talk and participating in the mantra, rituals, and meditation.
At this occasion, the members of the Sangha greeted one another by touching foreheads with each other. I didn't ask why at the time, and haven't been able to find a description of that tradition online. Could someone shed some light on this custom?

Gelug tradition seem to have this custom too, see the photo

These are helpful and lovely answers
Beth

My main teachers have a lineage coming from both Nyingma and Kagyü, so their explanations might differ slightly from 'pure' Karma Kagyü teachings, but I was told that touching foreheads is a gesture of very endearing closeness. Good old friends might touch their foreheads as a recognition of their proximity. Similarly, teachers feeling a strong bond with some students will touch their foreheads with them when the students thank them for a teaching received.
I was also told that it would be very impolite to 'demand' that a particular teacher touches their forehead with us, to somehow publicly recognize a closeness that doesn't truly exist.
Specially gentle, kind, and compassionate teachers will often never discriminate among students — they will always insist to touch their foreheads after a teaching is giving. HH the Dalai Lama also often does that to complete strangers (with some eyebrow-raising from his entourage!). The point here is that a Bodhisattva truly never discriminates among sentient beings — he or she will feel close to everybody!

I too am part of the Kagyu lineage, and was told by my partner at the time (who teaches under the Kagyu lineage) that it also known as a 'spiritual kiss'. A blessing as it were. Your 'Sky Eye' or sixth chakra is known for being the holding of enlightenment and is regarded as a wonderful light source. By 'light', I sort of mean knowledge -- an ability to 'see' in a way that takes a lot of meditative practice and devotion. When we touch things to our Sky Eye, it enables another connection and closeness to emerge. A mutual understanding, relationship and insight. My Lama often greets people in this way; gently holding their heads and meeting foreheads with an exchange of great joy. It is an amazing thing to see and be a part of! Connecting with others in this way as a greeting or a blessing can create a very instant, quick mutual bond. Especially when you are both part of the Sangha and therefore hold similar beliefs, or have been undergoing meditative practice for a while which will enable your Sky Eye to be quite 'open'/'aware'. It is also seen as a way of showing that no one is seen as more important, or 'higher' than the other, and that we are all equal (even when this is done by a Rinpoche). Those of higher importance will also touch gifts to their forehead as a way of blessing them.

When I was given my son to hold during the first few minutes after his birth, as I looked into his new eyes and he (seemed) to look into mine, I was STRONGLY compelled to touch my forehead to his. I couldn't resist if I'd wanted to. It just felt like the "right" way to welcome him into this world. I still remember how it seemed to hum where we touched and behind my eyes, and my throat and heart ached. It was one of the three most charged (physically and emotionally) moments of my life.

To me, it may be one of the highest expressions of love and respect for another person, regardless of age or gender. What I think makes this practice rare is probably because these feelings, that makes us feel a certain way, are rarely expressed.

There is something about touching foreheads that goes beyond a gesture. If any of you have had a baby or partner touch foreheads with you rubbing them together... The sensation during and after is as if some sort of magnetism ha been created. It is very I intimate. It feels like instant comfortable meditation.