text:
What does this mantra Om Ah Hum Sarba Amrita Siddhi Hum Dze mean?
This is some sort of meal gatha.

ОМ А ХУМ САРБА АМРИТА СИДДХИ ХУМ ДЗА
  Om Ah Hum Sarba Amrita Siddhi Hum Dze

I'm stumped on translating it.
Source.

The source says this mantra transmutes food into amrita -- the nectar of health and longevity. What are you doing on russian Buddhist sites?!

I'm teaching my toddler Russian- we do shrine maintenance (подношения), I wanted to add a meal gatha to the repertoire of practices. Meditation and philosophy won't come for years.

Morphologically Russian is an interesting language. I get lots of insights into Pali/Sanskrit thanks to the common roots. (In that sense you might as well have him learn Hindi...) Let me know if you have any questions on the language, perhaps via G+, I'd be happy to help.

I think Mantras like this require initiation to use, and plus mantras can't really be given a translation. I think you'd be better off translating a traditional set of verses rather than a mantra for something to teach your child.

Mantras aren't complete sentences, so you can't really translate them, but the individual syllables usually have standard symbolic meanings, but there are always multiple layers of meanings in any given mantra, but here goes:
The first part, Om Ah Hum, is a very important set of syllables. Om represents the enlightened body of a Buddha, Ah represents the enlightened speech of a Buddha, and Hum represents the enlightened mind of a Buddha. Om is very commonly used to begin a Mantra and Hum is often used near the end of a Mantra, like in the famous Mantra for Avalokiteshvara, Om Mani Peme Hum.
Sarba I assume is a derivation from the Sanskrit word Sarva, which means all or every, and Amrita means nectar, so Sarba Amrita means all nectar.
Siddhi is a term that can refer to attaining magical powers through meditation, but I think it can also be used as a general term for spiritual attainments in general.
Hum is again, the representation of the enlightened mind of a Buddha, and as previously stated, it is often used near the end of a mantra.
I don't know the meaning of Dza however.


text:
What are: Lamrim, Dzogchen, Mahamudra
Could someone provide a brief (good-SE-answer-size) description of the three terms: Lamrim, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra. Specifically, are they different examples of one particular thing, are they progressive or parallel stages, etc. Also, if there was a way to "map" them against  other traditions (e.g. "Lamrim is similar to the Visuddhimagga" etc) that would useful. I've read about all three using the usual sources (Wikipedia etc) but it's like wading through mud trying to get a clear picture.

Lamrim is a genre. It is a genre of spiritual literature that gives a thorough overview of the whole teaching, methodically progressing from somewhat crude and primitive concepts of basic levels, to more sophisticated and nuanced perspectives of the higher levels. Each school usually has their favorite lamrim text or two (one for beginning students, one for advanced students and teachers), but if you read them side by side they are all pretty similar in content and sequence, the biggest difference being that of depth and tone. It is not uncommon for a lamrim text to take form of a condensed poem for easy memorization, which then requires a commentary text to hydrate the meaning back to a comprehensible shape.
In Theravada, the idea of stages of the path is not very developed. I'm not talking about levels of mastery of one technique like the 16 stages of Vipassana (there are such texts in Tibetan Buddhism as well, but they are not lamrim) but rather the epic levels that almost completely supersede each other's frameworks, such that the concepts very important at one level look rather naive at subsequent levels.
It is hard to call Visuddhimagga a lamrim text, for two reasons. First, because its scope is limited to what in a lamrim text would be about one sixth of the full path. Second, because it delves very deep into topics that in Tibetan schools usually belong in specialized meditation texts.
The lamrim progression is roughly:

"folk Buddhism", with emphasis on faith and basic morality, six worlds, karma
the kind of stuff that's studied in Theravada: 4 noble truths, samatha, vipassana etc.
mahayana stuff: bodhisattvas, paramitas
hardcore madhyamika philosophy
the (lower) tantra levels. Yidam generation and energy yoga.
mahamudra and dzogchen
dzogchen is sometimes separated into its own level above mahamudra

Mahamudra is an advanced-level set of teachings in New Translation schools (Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug). In simple words we could say Mahamudra is the level where we finally get direct experience of what Buddhism is actually about, with no beating around the bush like on the previous levels. That said, for but the most talented students Mahamudra is incomprehensible without the foundation of the previous levels, plus practicing it requires a kind of deep emotional stability that can only be developed through the previous levels.
Dzogchen is a very advanced-level set of teachings in the Old Translation school (Nyingma). In some sense it is very similar to Mahamudra, but it tends to be even more abstract. This is because Dzogchen speaks entirely from the perspective of enlightened Buddha, unlike Mahamudra which still has residual flavor of the student attitude.
If you need a parallel with Theravada, I suppose we could roughly put Mahamudra at the level of Fourth Jhana and Dzogchen beyond Fourth Jhana. I guess I could also say that the practice of Mahamudra and especially Dzogchen is not that dissimilar from Zen although the style is obviously rather different.

Cool. And so lamrims are somewhat similar to the different syllabuses you'd get at different universities? For example, someone doing Physics at MIT would take a slightly different path -- different classes and books -- from someone at Princeton, but they'd both be generally heading towards the same end goal and even possibly with some overlap on the way?

I'm not familiar with Western educational system but from what I understand, syllabus is a text summarizing the content of a course. If so then yes, this is more or less what a lamrim text is.

Yes pretty much. In practice it's really just a list of subjects to be covered. But in theory it could consist of that list but also all the books and texts to be read, all the practical work (e.g. lab experiments in a Physics course) and so on. In other words, it would be everything in written form that the student needs to then read/do in practice to achieve the end goal of the course.

Lam Rim in Tibetan literally means stages of the path. It's a kind of literature that gives a general overview of the path to enlightenment in terms of the three capacities of individuals and the different practices one must engage in. The first Lam Rim text was Atisha's work called the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, and over time other Lam Rim works were written, most famously Lama Tsongkhapa's Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path and Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation. Both of these list out different kinds of teachings and different meditative practices. They are in many ways quite like the Visuddhimagga.
Mahamudra is a meditative tradition that is most prominent in the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism but is also found in the Gelugpa school, and some forms of it are also in the Sakya school as well. In terms of practices there is Sutra level Mahamudra that isn't secret, and Tantric Mahamudra that is secret. There is also essence level Mahamudra but I have no idea what that is. Mahamudra involved different stabilizing practices to gain concentration and involves meditating on the mind as an object.
Dzogchen is a tradition found in the Nyingma school and sometimes is found in the Kagyu school as well. It has some similarities to Mahamudra but Dzogchen is entirely a tantric level practice and is more secret.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How would one begin practising Buddhism?
It is very easy to find lots of information on the internet about Buddhism and the concepts.
However I struggle to know where or how to start becoming a Buddhist, if that is the correct way to state it.

Welcome to Buddhism.SE! This is a difficult question to answer here. It's a bit like asking "How to become Christian?" Buddhism is a big thing, so unless you know specifically what you are looking for, you're bound to get some pretty conflicting answers.

Just by looking for information, I think you can safely say that you've started.  ;-)

@yuttadhamno Bobsworth couldn't do much better than begin with your "How to Meditate" videos.

@Bobsworth do you mean you want to  begin practicing meditation, practicing Buddhism by  making offerings like many lay Buddhists or both?

See also How does one become a lay Buddhist?

Find and join a sangha (buddhist community) that you are comfortable with.
Talking to the community to understand what and how they practice buddhism.
Accustom the practices based on what you can comfortably do for the moment.
Never forcing yourself to the extreme, e.g. immediately become a vegetarian, practice 1 hour sitting meditation daily, spend the whole day just talking about buddhism etc.
Buddhism practice is basically a continuous process of improving one's sila (morality/precepts), samadhi (concentration/stillness) and prajna (wisdom), until one attains the buddhahood (nibbana / nirvana).
As a start you can view Buddhism essentially is a lifestyle which would lead the practitioners to a better tomorrow.

Here is a short and nice article about Buddhist path: The Buddhist Path in 3 words

good answer, except the infinite loop part :) still +1 for the first answer! Welcome to Buddhism SE.

@AndreiVolkov, thanks. It is really an infinite loop. The thing is after it becomes habitual, the doer is no longer feel he/she is doing it. This is just like walking. For the infants, they have to learn it but once they master it, it becomes part of them.

If it was an infinite loop, Buddha would not say "reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal". According to Chogyam Trungpa, getting stuck on infinite self-improvement is Spiritual Materialism, not Buddhism.

I totally agree with "reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal". However, a beginner needs instructions which are simple enough to follow. Would it be better to rephrase it to "... is a continuous process of improving one's sila ... till one reach buddhahood (nibbana / nirvana)? :-)

It's just a word. "Infinite" usually means "endless", however, which may not be the word you'd want. There's "continuous" which means "without a break" or "without ever stopping". Or "continual" which means "recurring", "regular", "frequent" (but perhaps with some stops in between). Or it can be described as "circular" (c.f. the "wheel of dhamma"). Another English word to use (to describe a repeated sequence of several steps) might be "iterative".

@JooGuan, ChrisW yes, without a break, until completion -- sounds good.

I would start with taking a good look at your life and creating an inventory of pathological patterns -- typical situations when you get yourself in trouble, usually accompanied by strong emotions.
Then try to identify corresponding attachments (preconceptions, biases, extra importance you assign to stuff) - and spend some serious time watching yourself act in real situations. See how letting go of these attachments during the act itself immediately reduces or completely eliminates the emotion.
Practise this act-watch-admit-identify-let-go-act-watch-etc cycle for several years, until you get both good at watching yourself objectively as well as capable of letting go of pretty much anything.

1) Familiarize yourself with what sorts of Buddhism exist and which one speaks to you. There are 80,000 doors to the dharma and the teachings vary because they are specific to the audience they were taught to.The books aimed at university students do the best overviews of all traditions, but can feel "heartless", the books by accomplished practitioners of a particular sect have the most heart, but may or may not speak to you.
2) Find out what real world groups exist and visit them. If you're in the West, you may want to check to see if services or classes are in English before you attend. If no groups exist, consider trying out online video meditation classes or create a meetup.
3) As you study the various schools of Buddhism, look for both ideas and practices-- the ideas color all your actions, the practices are specific things you do, from chanting, to meditation, to following precepts and so on.

I suppose you've seen How does one become a lay Buddhist? which mentions ideas like 'Taking Refuge', the 'Three Jewels', and the 'Five Precepts'; and that you're asking a more personal question.
I struggle to know where or how to start becoming a Buddhist
If you're struggling then presumably you feel a need.
Perhaps that's the first step.
I think that Siddhartha felt a need: in his case, it was his discovering that poverty, illness, old age, and death exist, that made him decide that there was some problem, to which he wanted to discover some solution. It was that which caused him to invent (or discover) Buddhism.
Similarly I suppose for other people, "becoming a Buddhist" or "practising Buddhism" means:

Having, being aware of, a need or problem (or several)
Trying to resolve that problem using Buddhist theory-and-practice

I think that if or when you start step 2 then you are "becoming a Buddhist" or "practising Buddhism".

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


text:
Why do Bhikkhunis have so many extra Vinaya rules?
The Vinaya contains 227 rules for male monks and 311 rules for female monks. Is it known why so many additional rules were put in place for Bhikkhunis?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu, in Access to Insight, says,

Thus the Bhikkhunī Pāṭimokkha contains 85 rules for which there are no
  direct correspondences in the rules for the bhikkhus. Some writers
  have interpreted these added rules as sign of an attempt to oppress
  the bhikkhunīs unfairly, but it should be noted that:

more than one third of these extra rules were formulated to protect bhikkhunīs from being the direct recipients of the abusive or careless
  behavior of other bhikkhunīs;
two of the extra rules (Pācittiyas 6 and 44) prevent bhikkhunīs from putting themselves in a position of servitude to bhikkhus or lay
  people;
according to the rules' origin stories, all but three of the extra rules (Pācittiyas 59, 94, and 95) were formulated only after
  bhikkhunīs complained to the bhikkhus about an errant bhikkhunī's
  behavior.

Tellingly, these last three exceptions were formulated after
  complaints initiated by the bhikkhus, and they touch directly on the
  formal subordination of the Bhikkhunī Community to the Bhikkhu
  Community. However, they are counterbalanced by two rules exclusive to
  the Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha — NP 4 & 17 — that were formulated at the
  request of bhikkhunīs to prevent bhikkhus from abusing their position
  in the hierarchy in a way that would interfere with the bhikkhunīs'
  practice of the Dhamma. For a more detailed discussion of the checks
  and balances in the relationships between the two Communities, see The
  Buddhist Monastic Code, volume II, chapter 23.

For what it's worth there is a further set of opinions, published here: Extra rules. This too says that the rules "primarily dealt with the protection of the nuns".

In the booklet "Women in Buddhism - Questions and Answers" by Chatsumarn Kabilsingh Ph.D., this question is answered in some detail with a comparison of the monks and nuns Pāṭimokkhas. This quote shows where a large amount of the difference lies:

In Patidesaniya section, there are eight rules for
  bhikkhunis. Bhikkhus have the same content of the rules but
  they are counted as one and classified under Sekhiya, another
  section. This is one of the reasons responsible for the bloated
  number of rules for bhikkhunis.
In the Pacittiya section, bhikkhunis follow 166 rules as
  compared to 92 for bhikkhus. There are 70 common rules
  shared by both Sanghas. Then bhikkhus have another set
  of 22 exclusively for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis have another
  set of 76 rules exclusively for bhikkhunis. Within 76 rules
  exclusively for bhikkhunis, it is notable that there are many
  rules regarding ordination requirements which the bhikkhus
  also have to follow, but for bhikkhus they are not counted
  in the Patimokkha. This also results in a seemingly larger
  number of Patimokkha rules for bhikkhunis.
Due to the above reasons, the bhikkhunis carry a higher
  number of rules in the Patimokkha than the monks, but in
  reality they follow a similar set of rules.


text:
Group meditation vs. Solo meditation
Other than personal preference, are there known to be advantages or disadvantages to meditating in a group instead of alone?

Are you looking for some canonical answer, instead of (i.e. other than) personal opinion/experience/preference?

If there is a canonical reference to advantage or disadvantage of group meditation; that would be very interesting to know. Modern studies would also be interesting.

Think about it - we go to refuge to the Buddha, Dharma, and the Sangha.  If community wasn't important, it wouldn't be one of the Three Jewels.  There's ample scriptural support for this as in Dhp 6.78, the concept of the kalyaṇa-mittata or spiritual friend, and the Upaddha Sutta where the Buddha called admirable companionship the "whole of the holy life".  While it can be difficult to find a group where you feel "at home", being around like minded individuals striving to the same end will only bolster your practice.  Furthermore, even those tiny annoyances like someone shifting during meditation, someone coughing, or a loud breather help strengthen your concentration and resolve.  Life is not perfectly collected samadhi!  We need to learn how to overcome obstacles.  What better time than when you're on the cushion!  I think it important to add that monasteries are supposed to be places most conducive to the spiritual life.  If solo meditation was somehow "better" than group meditation, then monks would not sit with each other.  Needless to say, this is clearly not the case.
I will also say that personally, I always sit more deeply when I meditate with others.  The ritual of driving to the same place, seeing the same people, and feeling the energy in the room - nothing can replace that!
As off color as this metaphor is, I feel the need to share it.  One of my teachers once told me that meditation without community is like sex by yourself - it's pleasant and effective, sometimes something dramatic occurs, but always there is the sense that something is missing!  :-)

Some monks sit with each other ... but I think some sit (or sat) alone: http://www.hermitary.com/articles/thudong.html Siddhartha sat alone.

Oh certainly.  There is a hermit tradition in Buddhism.  The predominate form of practice, however, is in a group.

In my experience, group meditation gives one encouragement and adds a new dimension to one's practice. The sense of community is also helpful.
A disadvantage of group meditation is that groups vary in their qualities and it might take a while to find the right group. I've tried 3 in my city, and only one have I been able to take seriously. They consider themselves Buddhist, and they apply it to their lives in an honest and genuine fashion. The meditation session is uncomplicated, consisting of beginning and ending chanting, a 50-minute sit with a break, and a short reading passage from some Buddhist literature. This group is affiliated with one of Ajahn Chah's monks.
Of the other two, one was in it for the money, and didn't give me a feeling of community. The last one is sort of a secular mixed bag of traditions that doesn't seem to settle on any one practice.
I have a slight preference to meditating alone, but I try to make it to my group's weekly meet when I can, as it provides me some consistency that I wouldn't otherwise have.

I like your answer, I think group meditation is good, however more distracting, sometimes the places are overcrowded and its good only to practice patience and loving kindness, because meditation becomes hard... I prefer to do it alone too

Even if very usual and very popular, could anybody remember a group meditation in the Tipitaka?
Its good to learn together, improve each other, talk on Dhamma, but behind of that, if it is a matter of real battle and seclusiveness, there is really no reason for "coupling".
Brahmacariya has many levels.
The only benefit it has is that the governing principle "Cosmos" is very present, since most do not so much believe in "supernatural" things. Atma is sure that most of you know the supporting thought: "If I give up now, they will think that I am a bad meditator".
So for simply such purposes, or to have a teacher aside, to watch and assists, such as gathering together to make basic training is good. As for doing the real "job" it really has no value but simply a lot of distraction potential. Yet it sells and bind many costumer to the provider. One needs to think about if his/her aim is to get independent or even more depended. Just think on the many trouble in and around of groups.
Nekos comment that there is a kalyanamitta required , when it comes up to your own work, is quite miss-understood.
A gathering in certain groups simply provides with outside necessaries.
Upasakas Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena argument in regard of "conditioning / fabrications in the environment" could be only valid in regard of giving a good sample or such as visible assenting, which people at large would naturally follow. But that's all. The rest might grow in the area of the mystics of "Buddha-field", but such is more a Tantric and worldly thing.
Even thought of disturbance of beings in other spheres, remember the metta Sutta. So a mass of people entering an area, are naturally not able to do not disturb at the first place, even if they are later more separate.
To do such things like occupying even public places with such things, what does is it actually directed to, aside of occupying?
Training and learning good, just as a start or sometimes improvement. For actually working, no. No need at all and no where suggested by the Buddha, as far as Atma is aware of it. It simply sells, but not awakening at least.
One Who Dwells in the Dhamma

When meditating, this creates conditioning / fabrications in the environment around the meditator. So when meditating in a group such conditioning can effect each and everyone in the group making your meditation more productive.
Similarly for any good action if you do as a group the results / karma is stronger than doing solo.

There is neither group nor solo practice. It is a false distinction. The delusion of duality perpetuates this illusion.

How does this answer the question?

It does not at all. However, I am grateful for this answer.


text:
What happens if a Person spent money on good things which are earned from bad ways
Think That , a person is selling liquor or weapons , Now he has done the business some time and now he is a very rich person .
According to Buddhism Selling liquor and weapons are bad businesses .
Now he is spending money for good things ;)
Ex:- doing lots of charity work .
So now what will happen .
If he did more good things more  no harm will come for him ?
Can you explain me this :) Thanks in advance.

There is no problem at all. It will have mixed result (if casue is really mixed) or each action will have it's own result (selling liquor - bad, generosity - good). Amount of the result is not just lineraly depend on the amount of action, it's also depend on the level of development of mind of the performer. There is more factors to play in the ripening of karma.


text:
Purifying Karma using mantras and/or prostrations
I would like to know if, in the pali canon, there is any practice for purifying karma, such as: Using mantras, prostrations etc...
I know there is the concept of using good Karma, like dana, to balance the results (vipaka) of bad Karma, however the question is focused on rituals or practices.

As I pointed out in "If I undergo suffering now, will my next birth be better?" a while ago, liberation is not attained by "burning" past karma, but through "abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now"
As @Yam Marcovic showed in his "large boulder" quote (SN 42.6), Buddha of Pali Canon laughed at using rituals to improve someone else's rebirth. Indeed, how can your chanting help a dead person attain skillful mental qualities?! :)
However, Buddha never denied efficacy of rituals for changing one's own mood and motivation. In fact Buddha promoted usage of verbal aids for attainment of first jhana, and mantras can be seen as a kind of verbal aid.
In Tibetan Buddhism mantras and prostrations are used to cleanse one's own mind (not past karma!), one's own habitual tendencies. Specifically, mantras help stop inner dialog, and prostrations help against egoistic resistance.
From Mahayana perspective, denying efficacy of such self-directed rituals is foolish, because rituals obviously do change mood and motivation of the performer and participants.

In Sutta Nipata there is a lyric about if and when the Buddha gets approached by the question of earning merits (which in my thoughts appear when I read of "polishing karma"). I've kept this to my "personal inventary" long time ago; moreover it reminds me also of the demand of general wide-heartedness of any follower that the Buddha was going to accept...
see: Palicanon Thansissaro Bhikkhu , Pali

(english by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
SN III,2 Padhana Sutta
(...)
Saying these verses, Mara stood in the Awakened One's presence.
  And to that Mara, speaking thus, the Blessed One said this:
"Kinsman of the heedless, Evil One, come here for whatever purpose:
I haven't, for merit, even the least bit of need.
Those who have need of merit: those are the ones Mara's fit to address.
In me are conviction, austerity, persistence, discernment.
Why, when I'm so resolute do you petition me to live?
  (...)

I don't understand why this sutta reminds you of "the demand of wide-heartedness"?

@chrisW: Just "in general". When I'd read this, I felt confirmed with this, that the bookkeeping of the "small coins of merit" is somehow contrary to some general habit of "wide-heartedness" (I hope that's the correct english term for "Großzügigkeit") with the ups and downs of the life itself... and that a better thing is to have a look on the longer waves and on the deeper flows - which is, what I feel the Buddha does here: to look for the general goal of liberation and not be disturbed by loss&wins of so-to-say "coins-of-merit"


text:
How does chanting work in Nichiren Buddhism?
This question came up in my book club.
Chanting is a central practice in Nichiren Buddhism. How does it work, what effects or benefits come from it?  Has this changed much between from historical and modern times?

Incidentally, Nipponzan-Myōhōji, a modern religious movement that emerged from Nichiren sect, was my first contact with real-life Buddhist practice. In Nichiren, chanting NA-MU-MYO! HO! REN! GE! KYO! is revered as a symbol of what they call "the true cause of Buddhahood". The idea being, if one never hears about Enlightenment one cannot get onto the path, so in each individual case of Enlightenment, the process must have started with someone dropping the word which planted the seed in the student's mind.
Nichiren (the founder) must have thought very low of his times -- chanting a title of a sutra(!) sounds like a suitable teaching for hell, the inhabitants of which would otherwise have no chance of asking "What does this mean, NA-MU-MYO-HO-REN-GE-KYO? Hm... glory to the Sutra of the Lotus of the True Dharma... So what is this True Dharma thing?" question.
A contemporary Buddhist teacher my friend Dennis Wallez explains:

Indeed Japan was quite in disarray at the time, torn by wars and famine and persecutions... Nichiren thought this partly was the karmic consequences of the perversion of Buddhism by previous schools. The notion of "Latter days of the dharma" was in full swing too and many teachers saw the local situation as a confirmation...

So to summarize, in Nichiren chanting is both a symbol and practice of seeding the basic seeds, a seemingly primitive work that is never beneath a compassionate Bodhisattva.
This is why Terasawa Junsei, a prominent teacher of Nipponzan-Myōhōji, was (and still is) such a big advocate of chanting NA-MU-MYO-HO-REN-GE-KYO in public, especially in troubled areas such as zones of armed conflicts.

So the purpose of chanting is to get other people to ask, what's that chanting?

One of the purposes, yes. It is also to remind existing Nichiren practitioners of the chain of causation that connects the original Buddha with the current practitioner.

I've been to meetings over the past year and the purpose of chanting is to help eliminate bad karma and plant the seeds for Buddahood. Nichiren Buddhist practice consists of chanting usually the 2nd and 10th chapters of the Lotus Sutra ("the last sutra") for long life and achievement of one's happiness. Usually this is done in front of a Gohonzon.
There is no harm in adding the mantra "Namyoho Renge Kyo" to one's spiritual practices done at morning and night. If you want to know the exact practice to do in the morning and night, it is called the gongyo.
I will admit though that some members are averse to adding this practice but I believe this is because they would rather be ignorant of the rest of Buddhism because of the high promises of this Lotus Sutra from merely chanting its title.
Nonetheless, it is considered genuine so no harm in trying out the chanting! You will nonetheless benefit from chanting the simple mantra as well as the gongyo practice!
It is probalby the most popular form of Mahayana Buddhism now because it is so easy to practice and because of the previous thing I wrote: chanting the title of the Lotus Sutra (Namyoho Renge Kyo) is said within the sutra to have myriad benefits.
To answer your question: the practice has remained the same since Nichiren introduced it: gongyo and daimoku to the gohonzon (a mystic seal) morning and night (takes 10 minutes).

Chanting the names of Buddha, Bodhisattvas or even as it happens the Title of the Lotus Sutra essentially works by being a powerful form of meditative mindful concentration. This is an easy straight forward way to practice the Concentration branch of the Noble Eightfold Path. Effects include experiencing the factors of the Jhana aka Zen - rapture, happiness, equanimity and clarity. This also eventually leads to the growth of ethics and wisdom. Best of all there's no special knowledge or meditative techniques explanation required, just chant. Ideally the syllables chosen should be ones that evokes reverential feelings and associations and is of a suitable length. "Sutra of the Lotus of the True Dharma" in English would be a tad too long but "NA-MU-MYO! HO! REN! GE! KYO!" is just about the right length to keep your mind concentrated. Usually 6 - 7 syllables are chosen and probably under 10 at most for 南無本師釋迦摩尼佛 - Namo Benshi Shijiamoni Fo in Chinese - Namo Sakyamuni Buddha.
As people point out it also plant the seed of the dharma, i.e. interest as people wonders what it is you are doing. When it is done as a team effort in group it also inspires feelings of camaraderie, strength, respect and persistence.
In Chinese Buddhism, they actually do this intensively at these seven days chanting retreats - similar to meditation retreats, where you spend 7 days chanting only the name of Amitabha, tens of thousands of times each day. I hear the effects of the training are incredible with people feeling like they are blissfully floating in the air.
Plus, divine assistance is always a possibility. :)

In general (not specific to Nichiren Buddhism which I am not familiar with), chanting could improve one's concentration and lead to peacefulness in the mind.
There are other benefits such as helping one to connect to its inner mind etc and might trigger the "ah huh" moment that explain questions that is long due to be answered.

Nichiren Buddhism is based on the centrality of the Lotus Sutra as being the supreme teachings of the Buddha, and believe that devotion to the Lotus Sutra itself is the correct form of spiritual practice.
The central way in which they develop this devotion to the Lotus Sutra is to chant the phrase
南無妙法蓮華経, pronounced Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō (The U is pronounced in some traditions of Nichiren Buddhism and in others is considered silent). The words Myōhō Renge Kyō is just the title of the Lotus Sutra in Classical Chinese pronounced according to their Japanese readings, and the beginning Namu is a transliteration of a Sanskrit word meaning devotion.

I believe that life is actually following a law that is universal and unavoidable just like gravity.When we chant we try to awaken ourselves to this ultimate law and synchronize our lives with the same .Our life at each moment encompasses the whole universe (as is written in the concept of Three thousand realms in a single moment of life) and we can tap the utmost potential hidden in this very moment by chanting Nam myoho renge kyo.

I'm not familiar with all Nichiren Buddhist sects, however, the one I do know a fair amound about stresses that just chanting isn't going to solve your problems or lead to your enlightenment. During the actual process of chanting (saying nam yoho renge kyo), there is no "set" thing or reason one has to chant. Generally though, people are chanting for (amung other things) happiness for themselves and others. The important part to remember is that, when chanting, and I'm paraphrasing Nichiren when I say this, "one must summon the faith that nam-yoho renge kyo is one's life itself." He also said that if you think that "the power" of nam yo ho renge kyo is outside of yourself, it is like a poor person counting a rich person's money and expecting to become wealthy.
     In essence, the purpose of chanting is as a sort of medetation or self-introflection. But it is more than just that, it is considered the way to, and I'm paraphrasing again, "polish the mirror of one's life to attain buddhahood." I have also heard that the reason chanting is said to be so useful is because it is like "the name of the universe", and that, just as a person, if you call them by the wrong name, wont respond, neither will the universe. (By universe here I mean pretty much all phenomena as well as the mystic law. Which are fairly complicated terms that I'm not good at explaining.) Anyhow, the question I asked once I heard this explaination was, "Isn't that pretty arbitruary? Why can't you just say literly any other phrase and expect the same result?" I personally don't know the best andwer to the question, as my knowledge is limited, but I think that it does have to do with the Lotus Sutra in the expedient means chapter where Shakyamuni Buddha says, "what the buddhas have achieved  is the rarest and most difficult-to-understand law (termed the mystic law in Nochiren). The true aspect of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between buddhas." This is to say that namyohorengekyo is also the true aspect of all phenomena. -it has many meanings and the title of the lotus sutra is only one-.
   Anyhow, and to answer your question about whether it's uniform throughout the ages, I would say yes, but I don't know too much specifics about the direct history itself. As for today, one of the reasons that it's kept in Japanese is because then whoever knows how to chant could chant with someone from where ever. There wouldn't be a language barrier or anything like that.
  I hope I was able to answer your questions. If not I'm happy to elaborate. Sorry for the answer kind of being all squished together. I was writing this in a hurry. If you want to get a quick, better, understanding of chanting and such, the link below goes to a short letter Nichiren wrote to a follower which basically outlines chanting and some other parts of the philosophy pretty well. Its also like 2 and a half pages or something like that so it doesn't take long to read.

http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/1


text:
"Anyone can be enlightened"
To my limited knowledge, in Zen, it is believed that anyone can be enlightened(if dedicated enough).
Does everyone have this potential in other branches of Buddhism?
Can everyone achieve this through meditation?
Is this what is meant by Buddha nature?
Is it exclusive to humans(is language necessary?)

My definition of enlightenment is (partly) to completely get beyond an egoic perspective. As such, is a dog already there, or perhaps not in need of it? For some people, their grasp on ego is such that they will not go there, unless broken. They cannot achieve it in their current state, have no desire to, and resist the idea flatly. To them, it is death.

Zen goes further than this, it says that all beings are already Buddha. This is why Shakyamuni Buddha said he gained nothing from complete, perfect enlightenment and why Nansen said 'ordinary mind is the way'.

@GavinSerra Could you post that as an answer, not a comment, please? Also is "Shakyamuni Buddha said he gained nothing" a quote from somewhere, a specific sutra perhaps?

@ChrisW The Shakyamuni quote is in the Diamond Sutra I think, although I don't have a copy to hand. And since I wasn't answering the question but adding a qualification, wasn't it more appropriate as a comment?

Diamond Sutra, Section 22: Then    Subhuti  asked  Buddha:  World-honored  One,  in  the
attainment     of     the     Consummation     of     Incomparable
Enlightenment  did  Buddha  make  no  acquisition  whatsoever?
Buddha replied: Just so,  Subhuti. Through the Consummation
of  Incomparable  Enlightenment  I  acquired  not  even  the  least
thing;  therefore  it  is  called  "Consummation  of  Incomparable
Enlightenment."
http://zen-ua.org/wp-content/uploads/the_diamond_sutra_english.pdf

'Ordinary Mind is the Way', case 19 of the Gateless Gate (Mumonkan) http://www.zenguide.com/zenmedia/books/content.cfm?t=the_gateless_gate&chapter=19

@GavinSerra I thought it was an answer, because the question is tagged [tag:zen]. And thank you for the reference (to the Diamond Sutra).

Buddhist philosophy, or even philosophy in general makes words difficult to use consistently. The concept of everyone is one of those words. Which makes the answer yes and no to the question: Can everyone be enlightened?
In, I believe, all schools and branches of Buddhism, all sentient beings can eventually gain enlightenment. With emphasis on "eventually".

Animals are not able to, as long as they are an animal.
Dwellers of lower realms, have an extremely hard time becoming enlightened so, and would probably need to accumulate some positive karma to become a human before they have a chance to.
Beings of higher realms like deva's tend to have such a happy and fun life, practising is difficult, but not impossible.
The human realm is seen as the best of all worlds in terms of practice.
Humans that have committed "Anantarika-karma" or Heinous Crime, (matricide, patricide, killing ahrat, wounding Buddha, creating a schism in the sangha) can no longer achieve enlightenment in this life.

Can everyone achieve this through meditation?
Now this is a difficult one. In the texts some of the enlightened students became so by listening to the words of the Buddha. Others became through practise. The main attributes needed seem to be a pure mind and insight, whether gained by meditation or otherwise.
Is this what is meant by Buddha nature?
I think it is, to an extend. This seems to be mainly a Mahayana concept and I'm not that familiar with it. I believe it's considered literally: "the potency to become a Buddha"
In the books I read of the Dalai Lama it is mainly revered to with respect to developing loving-kindness: "Training or developing your Buddha nature."
Is it exclusive to humans(is language necessary?)
Heavenly beings can also practise and become enlightened. I'm uncertain whether language is necessary, I can remember no sutta's about the subject.

It is my understanding from reading Dogen that everyone already has Nirvana within them and it is hidden by a mask and revealed through sincere practice
http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/fundamentals-dogens-thoughts?page=0,1

Dogen says, “Between aspiration, practice, enlightenment, and nirvana,
  there is not a moment’s gap.” Thus, nirvana is one of the four
  elements in a practitioner’s spiritual activity. For Dogen, nirvana is
  inseparable from enlightenment, and it is inseparable from one’s
  practice at each moment. In other words, there is no authentic
  practice that lacks enlightenment or nirvana.
While Dogen discusses aspiration, practice, and enlightenment in
  detail, he does not explain the last element, nirvana, which seems to
  be an invisible element in his teaching. It is as though he talks
  about the experience of nirvana without using this word.
Nirvana is regarded as the realm of nonduality, where there is no
  distinction between large and small, long and short, right and wrong,
  appearing and disappearing, self and other. It may be called reality
  itself, or the absolute place beyond time and space. This is a realm
  that cannot be grasped objectively. The intuitive awareness or
  transcendental wisdom that goes beyond dualistic, analytical thinking
  and leads us into this realm is called prajna in Sanskrit.
Dogen calls this place of inner freedom the buddha realm. It is where
  one is many, part is whole, a moment is timeless, and mortality is
  immortality. To experience this beyondness in the midst of the passage
  of time, change, and decay is a miracle. For Dogen, this miracle can
  happen each moment, as each moment of duality is inseparable from a
  moment of nonduality.

Dogen is generally considered to be a Zen practitioner, but how can we exclude his observations from his own experience from any Buddhist practice?
Here is another source that reinforces the ever present Nirvana in each of us
http://bdtest1.squarespace.com/web-archive/2010/9/9/moment-by-moment-nirvana.html

It is not that duality stops existing or functioning; the small is
  still small and the large is still large. The body remains the body
  and the mind remains the mind. Without discerning the differences
  between things, we could not conduct even the simplest task of our
  daily lives. And yet, in meditation the distinctions seem to dissolve
  and lose their usual significance. Dogen calls this kind of
  nondualistic experience nirvana, which exists at each moment of
  meditation.

There are so many areas of Buddhism and sects and circles within each sect that to find a universal belief in every sect of Buddhism is doubtful. My primary concern is does the primary area of my practice hold this to be true, or if nothing else do I hold this to be true. My own practice confirms to whatever degree possible what Dogen says from his ultimate experience.

Anybody has the ability to become enlightened however different parts of Buddhism have different beliefs on how this happens. Everybody already has the seed of Buddha hood/ Nivada inside them which is hidden in till revealed in sincere practice. As long as the person is committed to becoming enlightened they have the ability to do so. Animals are the only exception to this rule as they need to  create good Kama to enter the human realm before haveing the ability of enlightenment. People of higher realmes have to exercise restraint to avoid becoming attached to impermanent objects which cause Dukka (dissatisfaction) to exit the cycle of death and rebirth known as samsara. While this is the case in Zen Buddhism pure land Buddhism believes that you must have a relationship with Amitabha Buddha whereby one must call their name or chant homage. Pure land believers then hope to be reborn in samsara in the pure land were it is easier to stain enlightenment.
This is my understanding which is have understood from my GCSE course however it may not all be correct.

Self effort and meditation to achieve enlightenment are not universal in Buddhism. In Pure Land schools of Buddhism one has a relationship with Amida/Amitabha Buddha whereby one calls   their name or chants homage to their name. Such a believer would aspire to be reborn in the Pure Land where one can much more easily become enlightened as one would then be hearing the Dharma directly from Amitabha Buddha. More information on Amitabha.


text:
Is intercessionary prayer prohibited in Jodo Shinshu (Japanese Pureland?)
So I just read "Waking the Buddha" by Strand and he had a comment:
"It is unlikely that those who attended them would have felt within their rights, to demand that the Jodo Shinshu teachings showed practical application in daily life. In fact, the prohibition against intercessionary prayer in Rennyo's tradition would have argued against it."
In Jodo Shinshu, can one efficaciously pray to the Amida Buddha for some result in this world?

Intercessory prayer is viewed as, at most, superfluous to the practice of Nembutsu. Practically, Amida is seen as unlimited in his power and scope. Maintaining the Mahayana teaching of sunyata (non-duality), there is no separation between "I" and "Amida". He knows our minds precisely (maybe more) than we do, and feels our suffering as his own. As a limitless Provider (as Oya), he knows what we need and gives freely, just as children don't have to beg for good food from a good parent (Reference for this teaching below). So, in this way, the practice is redundant.
From "Prayer and Nembutsu" by Rev. Shoko Masunaga is Minister of the San Mateo Buddhist, Church San Mateo:

In the Shin doctrine prayers are not rejected since they come from the hearts of men and women who are weak and ignorant of the Law [of Cause and Effect]. But Saint Shinran finds that prayers of supplication and petition, asking forgiveness for the sins, are not necessary in the life of a Shin follower. This is because Amida Buddha, the Highest Truth, is not a God, a creator of the universe, a being who stands outside of man and the world, or the power that judges the action of man. Rather, Amida Buddha is the living compassion, free from all limitations, and living in the Highest Truth, Oneness. Amida's compassionate actions are directed to all beings in order to free them all from the world of illusion and ignorance and lead them to Pure Land. His actions and desires are in accordance with the Highest Truth. His power is so great and his aims are so clear that there is no limitation attached to his compassion. It is the absolute-non-discriminatory compassion, directed to all, just as the sun's rays pour light upon this world without discrimination. No supplications or prayers are needed on our part since the heart of compassion is the prayer of Amida that all will be safely directed to the Pure Land. Man is being uplifted, embraced, even when he is falling deeper into the cycle of birth and death.

(Source URL: http://seattlebetsuin.org/prayer_and_nembutsu.htm)
Saying that, individual followers may act spontaneously, voicing dharmic aspirations as reminders for our limited selves, not to "persuade" Amida to act this way or that.
Reference: Naturalness: A Classic of Shin Buddhism by Kenryo Kanamatsu

Taitetsu Unno is a modern day Shin master. In his book "River of Fire, River of Water" he explains the concept of the Japanese equivilent of the concept of "suchness" which is called sono-mama or kono mama simply meaning life "as is" or "just right as it is" through a popular Shin poem:

You, as you are, you're just right,
  Your face, body, name, surname, For you, they are  just right.
Whether poor or rich, Your parents, your children, your daughter-in-law; your grandchildren, They are, all for you, just right.
Happiness, unhappiness, joy and even sorrow, For you, they are just right.
The life that you have tread is neither good nor bad, For you, it is just right.
Whether you go to hell or to the Pure Land, Wherever you go is just right.
Nothing to boast about, nothing to feel bad about, Nothing above, nothing below.
Even the day and month that you die, Even they are just right.
Life in which you walk together with Amida, There's no way that it can't be just right.
When you receive your life as just right, Then a deep and profound trust begins to open up.

I think it's clear that the acceptance of things "as they are" is very important in Jodo Shinshu. You are not trying to pray for things to be other than what they are. This sense of acceptance is a concept which is understood in other Buddhist traditions as well. But it is beautifully expressed in this poem, I think. :)

Robuin111
I'm do a project for school and I'm hoping you remember where you got that poem from?

I think Robin was saying it's from a book titled River of Fire, River of Water written by Taitetsu Unno.


text:
A good mood/satisfaction
[This is a double question. I am unsure of Buddhism.SE in relation to posting to questions vs one per post]
So today, Like many teenagers, I went to school, a place where I am surrounded by friends and challenges. Today there were many pleasant moments, both mentally, emotionally, and sensually.
One thing that isn't unique to this day, is simply getting tired. Over the past few years, I've noticed that getting tired usually makes me more interested sexually, though I think this is either a longing for intimacy, or (more likely) experiencing normal sensory experience as more sensually, ever so slightly. During such episodes of routine tireless that occasionally arise, as is natural I crave sleep.
Sleep seems like a pretty blissful state, in that it does not really experience any highs, nor lows. I've read that to not experience any desire is greater than fulfilling ones desires. Is this equality 'simply' achieved through mindfulness? How would you recommend pursuing this?
I noticed that a distinctive attribute of pleasure is that generally, I don't want it to stop. Not that moderation is impossible, but its hard to draw a line with pleasure that is truly satisfying. Are some pleasures more satisfying? Or is the only path to satisfaction enlightenment, being detached from desires?

Regarding characteristics of pleasure & pain, MN 44 says this:

Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing, friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without knowledge.

Regarding your sleepiness: once the need arises, I'd try to substitute some of it for meditation, trying to focus on the breath, and not go anywhere else in your mind. Just sticking with it.
If you can get yourself to a state where you can enter meditation and gain refreshment and enjoyment, you'll have made very good progress, and that choice will now be more readily available to you wherever you are. But like anything worthwhile, it takes persistence and dedication to attain. So try to use this motivation for rest that you have right now as a catalyst for developing good qualities.

Sleep feels like pleasure when it is stress-free and the waking life is stressful. But a state of stress-free wakefulness is a higher bliss than sleep.
In your case the easiest way to achieve that should be through getting fed up with highs and lows, as opposed to suppressing them. This does not mean you have to deliberately seek the highest highs and the lowest lows but you don't have to particularly hide from them either -- this is a Vajrayana perspective. Instead, just face your pleasure directly, experience it fully, and see to what extent it is really a pleasure -- and at the same time see if you can open your scope enough to notice an element of pain that always accompanies pleasure: the pain of urging for more, the pain of interrupted pleasure, the pain of overindulging, and the pain of the high itself.
When you see that pleasure is not as pleasurable as it seems superficially, you will naturally get over it. The same way the "lows" are not as real as our minds would like us to believe. Once you really get this then you can sincerely and honestly experience whatever happens, without getting obsessed with its either so-called "pleasant" or "painful" qualities which are never as stable nor as separate from each other as they seem; they contain each other and fluidly flow into each other like Yin and Yang. Then you can naturally stay calm and blissful (dynamically transparent and open, rather than frozen) throughout all experiences.
Usually, when we get tired we calm down. When we calm down, our sensitivity naturally increases, and that's what you project as sensuality. But you don't have to get tired in order to calm down, nor do you have to limit your use of sensitivity to sensuality only, you can use it for all kinds of things.
Now, the reason we usually get sleepy when we calm down, is because the mind is conditioned to the drama of highs and lows, and when there is a gap it turns itself off. If you can get used to staying fresh amidst the calmness coming from openness, you can make good use of the increased sensitivity -- you can be an artist, a poet, a visionary...

I've read that to not experience any desire is greater than fulfilling ones desires. Is this equality 'simply' achieved through mindfulness? How would you recommend pursuing this?

I suspect it's through Right view.
For example you may notice that desires aren't satisfactory or aren't satisfied: that you cannot have what you want; that you do not want what you have; and that the things you already want and have, you cannot keep.
Or you might notice that wanting things to be other than as they are can be delusional, unskillful.
There is such a thing as "mindfulness", but it may be (i.e. I find it is, historically) helpful to see them in the sequence in which they're given:

Because of your view you develop intention
By (resulting from) intention you develop effort
By (resulting from) effort you develop mindfulness and concentration

But the 'view' comes first, and the rest are because of view.

Not that moderation is impossible, but its hard to draw a line with pleasure that is truly satisfying.

Maybe the pleasure is in successfully satisfying a need. If I am (my body is) tired and need to sleep then sleeping, relaxing (which satisfies that need) can feel "pleasurable". After a good night's sleep, I don't need to sleep any more.
Also maybe you don't need to draw a sharp/precise line: meditate before sleeping, dream of meditation while asleep, wake up to meditation.
IMO Buddhism is not averse to satisfying your bodily needs: see for example Buddhism and the body.
See also Middle way: "In the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism, the expression Middle Way is used by the Buddha in his first discourse (the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) to describe the Noble Eightfold Path as the noble path to achieve Nirvana, instead of taking extremes of austerities and sensual indulgence.
Later Pali literature has also used the phrase Middle Way to refer to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination as a view between the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism."
One of the things that makes physical pleasure (from satisfying physical needs) 'unsatisfactory' is that it's temporary: e.g. after you have eaten enough, then it is not pleasurable to eat more.

Are some pleasures more satisfying? Or is the only path to satisfaction enlightenment, being detached from desires?

How about the pleasure of having no desires?
Another way to express that is having the ability to fulfill your own needs. Part of doing that successfully is to ensure that your needs are humble. There's an expression from Zen, "Eat when hungry, sleep when tired."

You have 6 sense doors with the 5 inclined towards external senses and the the mind. Whenever anything comes in contact with any of the sense doors a sensation arices. It is like a stone thrown to water. E.g. if you see something 1st a sensation occurs around your eyes which nearly instantly ripples to your brain area when you give it an evaluation and both this ripples throughout your body.
How you fulfill a desire is that you seek some form of external or mental stimulation or contact which triggers some sensation which you have give a evaluation as something you desire or avoid contact with something you have given an evaluation as something you do not desire. Not relating to any sensation arising from contact you stop clinging or seeking to desire. If something pleasant comes your way well and good. If it does not still no issue. Wanting more is the issue here. If you want something more and do not get it you are disappointed. You have to get your mind to a state where you do not get disappointed whatever happens.


text:
What is circumambulation?
I read about this from time to time-- usually in reference to the stupas in India that held the Buddha's relics.
What was the point of circumambulation? Do any sects of Buddhism still practice this?

Circumambulation is also practiced in Hinduism

Circumambulation (Walking around something clockwise) is still a very common practice in most schools of Buddhism as a form of veneration of something.
It is done for Stupas containing relics of the Buddha most famously, but also for other things as well. For example, in the Theravada tradition it is common that on certain occasions one would circumambulate the entire temple or monastery, and I think this sometimes done in other traditions as well.
In Chinese and perhaps Vietnamese Buddhism it is common to circumambulate the main Buddha image of a temple and so temples often have an open path that goes around the image so you can easily do so.

The purpose of walking clockwise is to keep the right shoulder toward the object of veneration; which is a sign of respect.


text:
Is "the blind men and the elephant" a true Buddhist story?
It is hard to trace the source of this lovely story, it is present in different religions from India.
In some versions of the story, the Buddha was there, in other versions the Buddha only told the story and there are also versions without the Buddha (participating or telling it)
Is this story on the Dhammapada? Is it from a Sutta? I would like to know if it is present somewhere in the Pali Canon
Can anyone help?

What does true buddhist story mean?

I will edit it, good point

I believe it's a Jain's parable of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

So the stories with the Buddha were just made up? It is a possibility...

Well... before Buddha became Buddha he was a Jain at one point

Is “the blind men and the elephant” a true Buddhist story? I would like to know if it is present somewhere in the Pali Canon.
Yes, the story is present in the canon:

"Once, monks, in this same Sāvatthī, there was a certain king, and the
  king said to a certain man, 'Come, my good man. Gather together all
  the people in Sāvatthī who have been blind from birth.'"
"Responding, 'As you say, your majesty,' to the king, the man — having
  rounded up all the people in Sāvatthī who had been blind from birth —
  went to the king and on arrival said, 'Your majesty, the people in
  Sāvatthī who have been blind from birth have been gathered together.'
"'Very well then, I say, show the blind people an elephant.'
"Responding, 'As you say, your majesty,' to the king, the man showed
  the blind people an elephant. To some of the blind people he showed
  the elephant's head, saying, 'This, blind people, is what an elephant
  is like.' To some of them he showed the elephant's ear, saying, 'This,
  blind people, is what an elephant is like.' To some of them he showed
  the elephant's tusk... the elephant's trunk... the elephant's body...
  the elephant's foot... the elephant's hindquarters... the elephant's
  tail... the tuft at the end of the elephant's tail, saying, 'This,
  blind people, is what an elephant is like.'
"Then, having shown the blind people the elephant, the man went to the
  king and on arrival said, 'Your majesty, the blind people have seen
  the elephant. May your majesty do what you think it is now time to
  do.'
"Then the king went to the blind people and on arrival asked them,
  'Blind people, have you seen the elephant?'
"'Yes, your majesty. We have seen the elephant.'
"'Now tell me, blind people, what the elephant is like.'
"The blind people who had been shown the elephant's head said, 'The
  elephant, your majesty, is just like a jar.'
"Those who had been shown the elephant's ear said, 'The elephant, your
  majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.'
"Those who had been shown the elephant's tusk said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like plowshare.'
"Those who had been shown the elephant's trunk said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like the pole of a plow.'
"Those who had been shown the elephant's body said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like a granary.'
"Those who had been shown the elephant's foot said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like a post.'
"Those who had been shown the elephant's hindquarters said, 'The
  elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.'
"Those who had been shown the elephant's tail said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like a pestle.'
"Those who had been shown the tuft at the end of the elephant's tail
  said, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.'
"Saying, 'The elephant is like this, it's not like that. The
  elephant's not like that, it's like this,' they struck one another
  with their fists. That gratified the king.
"In the same way, monks, the wanderers of other sects are blind &
  eyeless. They don't know what is beneficial and what is harmful. They
  don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma. Not knowing what
  is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what
  is non-Dhamma, they keep on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding
  one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, 'The Dhamma is like
  this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like
  this.'"
-Excerpt from Ud 6.4, Sectarians (1)

It's in the Pali canon, but the earliest version of the parable actually comes from the Rig Veda.  Technically, it is a Hindu story, not a Buddhist one.

Could you provide sources? They would be helpful.

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


text:
What is done with offerings after they've been on the altar awhile?
This is an altar maintenance question.
What are the sort of typical things done with the food, water, flowers and so on that gets put on the altar for altar maintenance?

I believe the standard practice, at least in Tibetan Buddhism, is to put the food out for birds and animals to eat, and pour the water for plants to drink.

Its a good question. At a temple one might see large amounts of fruit left as an offering. Can one eat fruit that's been left an an offering?

I think that if you are the one who went to the temple to put the food, you can choose to either take the food back home or you can give it to the birds as what Andrei Volkov said or donate it to people in need.

Once an offering is made to the Buddha, it becomes the property of the Buddha, the person who offers it no longer has the ownership. However, Buddha is no longer present to consume them, so the place must be cleaned before things become messy.
In Theravada, the common practice is according to the Dakkhinavibhanga sutta commentary. However, I wasn't able to find an English translation of it in internet. So I'm giving the translation as I can.
It mentions,

if there's a monk who's an attendant of the Buddha, the offerings
  should be given to that monk. Other monks are also worthy of receiving them, [as the saying goes] son inherits what belongs to the father. Oil that's left must be used to light the lamps in the temple. Cloths that are left must be used as flags.

If there's no monk in the temple, a lay person who's an attendant can also take them. If there's no such person, there's no harm if anyone else uses them. Nonetheless, if  something's offered to the Buddha that can be used in the temple e.g. oil, taking them for personal use can be stealing. Otherwise there's no harm in eating food or even giving them to beggars or animals, you can get more merit :)
That being said, in Dhammadayada sutta, Buddha asks the monks to be the inheriters of his teaching and not the inheriters of his material.
Further, he says that the monks who don't eat his leftovers are more praiseworthy than the monks who eat them because it conduces to that monks' few desires, satisfaction, purity, the nature of being supported easily, and for arousing of effort.

...
  `Bhikkhus, I have partaken of my meal, is satiated and do not desire any more, there is some morsel food left over to be thrown away, If you desire, partake of it, if you do not partake it I will throw it to some place where there is no green, or I will put it in some water where there are no living things. '
To one of those bhikkhus, it occurs thus: `The Blessed One has partaken of his meal, is satiated and does not desire any more of it. There is some morsel food left over to be thrown away. If we do not partake of it, he will throw it to some place where there is no green, or will put it in some water where there is no life. Yet it is told by the Blessed One this: Bhikkhus, be the heirs of my Teaching and not the heirs of my material. Morsel food is one of the material, What if I spend this day and night bearing up this hunger and discomfort? He not partaking that food spends that night and day bearing up that hunger and discomfort. '
To the other bhikkhu it occurs thus: [repitition] What if I partake of that morsel food and put an end to my hunger and discomfort and spend the night and day?'
So he partakes of that morsel food puts an end to his hunger and discomfort and spends the night and day. Bhikkhus, whoever the bhikkhu who partook of the morsel food, overcame the hunger and discomfort and spent the night and day, yet the earlier bhikkhu is more reverential and praiseworthy. What is the reason? Because it conduces to that bhikkhu's few desires, satisfaction, purity, the nature of being supported easily, and for arousing of effort
MN 3

So I think this is applicable to lay people who are doing the altar maintenance as well.

It is also often given as gifts to volunteers or lay members of the temple who can/will use it. It is a gesture of kindness/compassion, as well as giving a blessing to that persons body in the form of food, at least that is how it seems when my Sifu gives fruit to myself and others.

This answer is indeed in line with Buddhist's precepts.  However, this begs the question of food offerings made to the Taoist gods during special occasions like Hungry Ghost and Chinese New Year. I found see shops setting up altars to the Chinese earth gods and offering various type of food, and spotted food thrown out after the offering, hence was wondering if it's spiritually moral to take food offered by others by thanking the gods.

Is this a new question? It would be on topic if you were asking what elements of Taoism have been borrowed into Buddhism. According to many Chinese Buddhist books I've read, it is a common theme for Buddhist monks writing for a Chinese audience to untangle the mix of Daoism/etc and Buddhism, e.g. the inefficacy of burning hell notes, etc.


text:
Jainism vs Buddhism: did Buddhism borrow from Jainism?
I've come across Jainism through looking for texts on Buddhism and I've found there seems a considerable amount of overlap. Did Siddhartha Gautama encounter or study under any Jainist teachers? It seems Jainism predates Buddhism by a lot so were these concepts also predating Siddhartha too?
Jainism: The ultimate goal of Jainism is the liberation of the self (jiva) from rebirth, which is attained through the elimination of accumulated karma (the consequences of previous actions). This occurs through both the disciplined cultivation of knowledge and control of bodily passions. When the passions have been utterly conquered and all karma has been removed, one becomes a Jina ("conqueror"), and is no longer subject to rebirth.
These principles include non-violence in all parts of life (verbal, physical, and mental), speaking truth, sexual monogamy, and the detachment from material things. As part of the disciplined and non-violent lifestyle, Jains typically are strict vegetarians and often adhere to a quite arduous practice of non-violence, which restricts the sorts of occupations they may follow (no farming, for instance, since insects are inadvertently harmed in plowing). Jainism's ethical system is based on the idea that right faith, knowledge, and conduct must be cultivated simultaneously.
Like comparing rules of monks and even the five precepts are identical from what I found.
The five precepts and five vows are identical from what I saw.
This is a list of comparisons and contrasts.
Sounds a whole lot like Buddhism to me! Does anyone know about the Jainism/Buddhism comparison?

The Buddha never claimed the Dhamma was original. He said, all he had done was discover truths that many before him have found. He also said anyone who leads people out of suffering is a valid teacher. He didn't seek to found a competing religion, there is nothing to indicate that.

i share the view of @Buddo. All roads lead to Rome.

There are very strong similarities between Buddhism and Jainism but there are also a number of major differences as well.
It is very true that Buddhism and Jainism use a lot of very similar terminology, but these are mostly terms that were floating around among the Shramanas (ascetics) for some time. Karma, rebirth, the goal as escape from rebirth. etc... were ideas that were not unique to either Buddhism or Jainism but were held by many different groups of ascetics. For example, the Ajivaka school taught very similar things on these points as well. The general terminology of rebirth and karma was a general part of the Indian ascetic tradition as a whole, rather than just Jainism.
However, when you look at how these concepts are actually understood in Jainism and Buddhism you find there are major differences. It seems that the Buddha borrowed existing terminology but gave it radically new meanings. The best example I can think of is in the Buddha's understanding of Karma compared with the Jain understanding of Karma.
The Jains (according to my knowledge) think of Karma as being some sort of subtle substance that sticks to one's Jiva, or soul. The Jiva is bound to a physical body, and as a result becomes loaded up with Karma, which weights it down and interferes with one's spiritual understanding. When one dies the kind of Karma stuck to your Jiva determines your rebirth. Through ethical living you can stop more karma from being accumulated and through ascetic practice you can 'burn up' the karma stuck to your soul, and if you can get rid of all of it, you become enlightened, and will then be reborn into a special heaven without a physical body where you will be just a Jiva and will stay that way forever.
The Buddha rejected the idea that Karma is any sort of substance and rejected any kind of soul or self as well. To the Buddha, Karma refers to an action with mental intention. The Buddha said this in many places, saying "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." and in several Suttas the Buddha spoke out against the Nigantha's (that's what the Jains were called at that time) understanding of Karma.

I actual got nervous, was hoping that Siddhartha didnt steal jainism teachings and proclaimed it his own. But I recall, his time with the acestics, I didn't know they were Jainist ( Is that correct? ) So both these answers help me, thank you so much

@Oswulf They could have been Jains, but we don't have any hard textual evidence saying that they were. They could have been part of any number of groups, but the texts don't record what they were a part of.

@Oswulf it'd be interesting to ask yourself why you got nervous. Is your belief in Buddhism only valid if it is unique? Are you deriving a sense of security from being a Buddhist? No Buddha arises in a vacuum.

"For example, the Ajivaka school taught very similar things on these points as well." As a matter of fact the founder Makkali Ghosala, of the Ajivika school was a disciple/companion of Mahavira before he got separated.

Are you saying that Buddhism is dependently arisen?
The similarities are there. Buddhism shares terminology with both proto-Hinduism and Jainism. I can't remember what the title of the book was. But I read a book about the history of the historical Buddha, from a not-Buddhist perspective, where the reader argued that the time of the Buddha was similar to the philosophical age of the Greek world where many thinkers and gurus debated topics, gathered followers who in turn debated and formed schools of thought of their own.
Considering there are a lot of sutta's where other teachings and teachers are mentioned, and where different views about the world are mentioned and rebutted, this view sounds to me like a realistic one.
Adding to this that Siddartha Gautama was, according to the texts of the Kshatriya (warrior and ruler) kaste; He was probably well educated and knowledgeable about the different teachings of the Brahman and the ascetics.
The concept of becoming enlightened or even the concept of some sort of awakening had to be there in one form or another, before the Siddhartha achieved it. It was mentioned as a goal by the ascetic he trained with and it was recognised by others. So the words and concepts where, to an extend, an ingrained part of the culture and language.
The newness or original thought of Buddhism is, like Bakmoon said, in the different meaning of those words and concepts:

Birth and rebirth is different
Karma is radically different
Nirvana is radically different
The way of achieving Nirvana is different
Meditation is different
Nothings is eternal, unchanging or satisfiable
Everything is dependently arisen

I've always interpreted the part of the middle way, as being in the middle between the Brahmans (living with wealth, sensuality and pleasure) and the Jains (Living in poverty, extremely strict eating guidelines, periods of fasting and persevering hardships.)
But the Jain are, if I recall correctly, never mentioned in the texts, so I can not be certain.

Thanks. I was actual very curious. I didnt want to find out that Buddha stole the Jainism method an reworded it as his own. Ive come to enjoy Buddhism alot. If I had found that out, it wouldve destoryed the joy I got from Buddhism. So I got nervous after reading about the all the similarities In Jainism. But this helps me out hearing this.

The Jains are mentioned in the Suttas, but they aren't given that name. In the Suttas they are called the Niganthas and their leader is referred to as Nigantha Nattaputta, who is called by the Jains as Mahavira. The Suttas depict the Buddha as being very strongly opposed to their understanding of Karma. The entire Sutta MN 101 is devoted to refuting it for example.

Thanks, I will edit my post tomorrow, when I have the time.

As I understand, one of Buddha's two teachers (Udraka Ramaputta) was a Jain. Evidently Buddha did learn a lot from jains, including the following:

the notion of Nibbana
meditation on various objects
using antidotes to counter pathological mind tendencies
the five precepts and the three poisons were inspired by corresponding Jain constructs
what later became Eightfold path was evidently influenced by Jain's Ratnatraya
the notion of Arihants and Buddha's epithet Jina are Jain legacy.

So yeah, much of Buddha's basic education came from Jains, and when he finally Awakened to Truth, he reused some of Jain's concepts while filling them with his own meaning, and modeled some of his teaching after Jain's.

VARDHAMANA -- Vardhamana was born in 599 BCE in Kudagrama near Vaisali in Bihar.
He died of at the age of 72 in 527 BCE at Pavapuri near Rajagriha.

GAUTAMA BUDDHA -- Gautama Buddaha was born in Lumbini near Kapilavastu in the foothills of Nepal in 567 BCE.
The Buddha died in 487 BCE in kushinagar at the age of 80.

You may find a lot of discussions and rebukes of the Buddha toward the Niganthas here.
The most famous today is so often stated by "Buddhists" known as the Uposatha of the Jains which is a part of the Muluposatha Sutta (AN 3.7)

I don't have a specific answer for you, but I recommend that you look for a documentary called, "The Story of India." It's a four part series about the history of India from several different perspectives. In the second or third episode, religion is covered. The narrator gives very specific information about how Buddhism and Jainism came to be and how they were related. It's been a few years since I watched it, so I can't remember much. But I found it fascinating.

I just read a transcript here and it says little or nothing about how Jainism came to be (just that Mahavira was a contemporary of the Buddha), nor how Buddhism is related to it. It does summarize the Buddha's life (maybe with nice video footage). There's also a copy of the video (which I haven't watched) here.

It used to be on Netflix. I could have sworn he put a link to it. Not only was it spiritual, but also geographic origins. Perhaps I'm wrong about which documentary I was watching. It's been a long time since I saw it.

Jainism is different mainly in the following facts:
1) It is what the Buddha described in his first sermon as 'the extreme of self torment/denial'. Henceforth it is to be rejected as not fitting for somebody seeking the end of dukkha.The main ascetic method of Jainism is extreme fasts, emaciation, going naked etc, it was declared by Buddha as conducing to more dukkha, not wise and as having no merits whatsoever.
2) Buddha was very respectful at first towards all ascetic forms as an earnest and young seeker of truth, so you may say he did practice a lot what Jains preached, before enlightenment. His own doctrine must therefore have been formulated based on the lessons he learned from this inevitable tough long journey of asceticism as a Yogi.
3)It was the Jains themselves who didn't practice as they preached, as it was later revealed, and against their own principle of 'ahimsa', they actually did involved in the hired assassination of a reknowned Buddhist Arahat, Moggallana the left hand of Buddha, whom they accused of defaming them.
So I conclude that even though Buddha did teach asceticism and admitting was respectful to all forms of it, he had much to objection with the Jains, and it wont be correct to think he plagiarized them as asceticism was pretty much all the same back in those days and to combine what I said with what somebody already have stated above, there are two main objections from the Buddhist side, namely 1) their Karmic doctrine is deeply flawed ( it was a very materialistic interpretation of Kamma) and 2) their asceticism was flawed to the extreme as openly declared in the Dhammachakka Sutta by the Buddhists.
Last but not the least, yes, when you come to a deeper level of understanding, the distinction between what is Buddhist and Jainist becomes meaningless or irrelevant as there may be instances in the both scriptures where they are drawing parallel references to one root, one lineage, the lineage of ancient kings and sages of India, and just because of that you should not be so biased as to say we plagiarized from them. And Buddha did admit he alone was the true Buddha of the era, and Mahavir wasn't a true Buddha, as no two lions can live inside one cage and no more than one Sun should appear at the same time, lest we all burn from the combined heat.

The Buddha said it was heresy to claim he invented the dharma or that what he was teaching was anything original. He was very clear that he was just recovering an ancient path.

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

Buddha's focus was on Nirvana and the roots of suffering which are inside of us - that would be a great deal do dismiss God (outside).
The are 3 ways: Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana.
Hinayana is Nirvana for them selves Maha and Vajra is for world peace. They don't aim to be liberated they aim to bring liberation - to end dukkha.
Buddhism is based on the "Four Seals" so if it's not rooted on that it's other path.
Jainism is for Moksha right? Then Mahayana principle is not Moksha is world peace. Vajrayana has in his hart the Mahayana essence.

According to this Jainpedia page on Jain teachings on karma:

The karmas accrued over a lifetime trap the soul in the cycle of
births. The karmas mature by affecting the soul or the physical body
of its next lifetime or birth. When the body dies, the soul is born in
a different body, which is shaped by karmas from the previous birth
and the ones before that. The condition of the soul in that lifetime
is also influenced by karmas from previous incarnations. This cycle of
birth, death and life repeats endlessly while the soul has karmas
attached to it.
The soul yearns to fulfil its true nature, which it cannot do while it
is imprisoned within the cycle of rebirth. Only a soul without karma
can be liberated from the cycle of birth, reaching self-realisation.
Following the teachings of the Jinas and developing spiritually lead
to the prevention of new karmas entering the soul – saṃvara – and the
removal of existing karmas. ....
Destroying karmas that are attached to the soul requires ascetic
practices such as fasting, meditation and denying bodily needs and
comforts.

In other words, the Jain way is emptying the karma account in order to end the cycle of rebirth, which is suffering.
The Buddha's path is that of the purification of the mind to end suffering, and not emptying of the karma account.
The Jain idea is that suffering is sustained by karmic balance. The Buddhist teaching is that suffering is sustained by craving and ignorance.
Of course, another obvious thing is that in Jainism, you have a reincarnating soul which gets karma stuck to it like dirt. In Buddhism, all phenomena is not self. An unenlightened person in Buddhism has defilements in his mind. So again, it's mental defilements and not karma which fetters a person in Buddhism.
So, this also proves that Buddhism did not borrow from Jainism, because the basis for liberation in both, is different.
From MN 101:

“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who have this
doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual
experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.
So, due to eliminating past deeds by mortification, and not doing any
new deeds, there’s nothing to come up in the future. With nothing to
come up in the future, deeds end. With the ending of deeds, suffering
ends. With the ending of suffering, feeling ends. And with the ending
of feeling, all suffering will have been worn away.’ Such is the
doctrine of the Jain ascetics.
I’ve gone up to the Jain ascetics who say this and said, ‘Is it really
true that this is the venerables’ view?’ They admitted that it is. ...
But since you don’t know any of these things, it’s not appropriate for
the Jain venerables to declare this.’  ...
Such is the doctrine of the Jain ascetics. Saying this, the Jain
ascetics deserve rebuke and criticism on ten legitimate grounds.

I also think,that Buddha and mahaveera taught same things but
Their must be a competition between followers of Buddha and mahaveera .. That's how today both religion are has geographycally and conceptually diffrence ... Don't worry let the some one us become a enlightened and then the truth will be rediscovered

U must be a orthodox person ...  You are following a enternal religion like buddhism but u belive in physical thing .. Its not great dude ... Now come lets have a time travel In buddist texts there are 28 pichhecca Buddha means previous Buddha .. Actual 12 of them,are Jain thirthankaras ... As vimalnatha, rishbha deva, and many  In buddist text there a system which Buddha called only the one true and fine system .. He gave a name "chaturyaam dharma"  actually that led by 23 third Jain thirthankara ..  Some of great thinker also says that the parents of lord Buddha was also follower of parshvanatha the 23rd thirthankara.. Who was a jina born 280 years before Buddha .. There are a reference that Buddha himself was at vaishali and mahaveer swami got nirvana at pavapuri .. Hearing this Buddha cried a lot ...  Forgot all this things .. Now come with me brothers  Many many thousands years ago before Buddha and mahaveera  People used to live like animals , they don't know their known reality like we also today.. Then there were 14 great man born .. Hindu text and Jain text call them "manu" the last manu was king nabhi raja who was elected by people He gave birth a child named "rishabha" .. I am saying that he is follower of Jain or Hindu etc.  Simply he was the worlds perfect man "arhan","arhat","adim,"Adam",arihant"  he taught 72 arts to man and 64 arts to women that's how the worlds first sytem made up Then he left whole world passesion like Buddha and mahaveera did .. And become monk and finally get nirvana at mount kailash .. Indians also knows him a Shiva  That's how the words first system  "a religious system made up"

Perfect. The harapan culture also has pasupatinath coin. And. Recent study says it was rishabhnath.  In tine of buddha jainism was not well defibed. Abd it was pipular as shaman tredition with various sects. Ajivaks was one such sect. Well established few year beforw buddha by makhali gosala

Then person start follow them  half with mis concepts and Hal with right ... Who followed the right become enlightened.. Who follow the wrong  they are like us fighting online on some sites Some of them teaches us the truth of life with perfect knoledge power and bliss  In my opinion they were thirthankaras , also mention as previous Buddha ... Jainism and buddism is not diffrwnt  Only the name and some of concept is diffrece because of gape of 2500 years  A loving and kind comment by a Jain boy  May in some of ur life u realise the truth of life and u also become a siddha or Buddha  Believe in yourself  Love u ... Have a great life

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


text:
How to refute the idea that Buddhism might be actually "too extreme"?
I actually had a lot of respect for Buddhism, and studied it a few years ago.
But it made me feel that it might be too extreme (and it could be that most religions are too extreme, because they tend to think what they believe is right, and the other beliefs are wrong).  I say that because, for example, it tend to teach self-sacrifice and letting go, and that do not hold onto anything, and to the point that do not marry and do not have any children -- what the deep believers -- monks -- do.
Let's say if this is the appropriate thing to do, and everybody in the world does that, then the world, in 100 years or 200 years, will not have human beings any more (because if no marriage and no children, then there will be no new life on earth, while the existing people pass away).  I can't say that it will be "good" if on earth, there is no more human beings, but lions, wolves, foxes, rabbits, and other animals remain on earth.
Could somebody present a calm and rational argument to suggest otherwise?  I am open to any idea, as I am, like many of us, always learning new things along our life time.

動靜能量, i initially assumed your question was "what if everyone became a monk?" but it could also be a different question, "Does Buddhism teach that everyone should be celibate?" which is slightly different. Could you perhaps clarify what you're asking?

This seems like the more universal problem of taking something literally which is meant to represent something symbolically. The ideas of sacrifice and detachment might have some value symbolically (as do the stories of the ascetics who exemplify these concepts), but, taken literally, they don't fit into the real world.

I think worrying about such things is tantamount to a person who just started a small business and is only grossing a few thousand dollars a year worrying about what life will be like as a millionaire. The truth is, by the time you reach that level, if you reach that level at all, your entire perspective will be different and you will not be concerned with such issues. Just practice and let whatever happens come naturally.

It's kinda funny to see how we westerners stereotypically misunderstand Dharma as postulating some kind of globally applicable set of absolute unconditional prescriptions. Is this not taking it to the extreme? :) Buddha's teaching should not be taken out of context and unwittingly extrapolated.
Did Buddha say lay people should "not marry and do not have any children"? No, he said they should avoid sexual misconduct.
Did Buddha say all lay people should become monks? No, in fact he suggested that monks should not work and are instead to live in dependence on lay community (begging, accepting donations).
Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? No, he taught middle-way: by looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others we look after ourselves.
Did Buddha teach radical ascetic rejection of everything? No, what he taught was letting go of obsessions, preconceptions, biases, overgeneralizations, irrational expectations; he taught not to assign too much importance to petty stuff that does not deserve it; he taught to be analytical; he taught to be practical and flexible and wise.
Buddha said, tanha (thirst, craving) is the source of dukkha (troubled mind, emotional suffering). This means, whenever you crave for things to be different than they are, right now, you suffer. This does not mean you should not participate in life, this means if we fully accept what we have, and work with it, instead of wishing it were otherwise, we will not generate emotional suffering.
Is this not the most rational doctrine ever?

Thanks Andrei. This addresses the other reading of the question I later realized the OP could have been asking.

It's rather easy to answer in the form: Does Buddha teach this extreme thing? No, he only teaches you not to do that bad thing. A better answer would perhaps go into details about what that "bad thing" is and is not. For example, "not to cling to petty stuff that does not deserve it" -- how does one know what is petty? This is basically the gist of OP's question, because one may claim that life, food, offsprings, etc. are petty. How do we know whether that claim is extreme or not? Based on what criteria do we judge?

It is important to have the right understanding of what is really meant by "clinging" and "letting go". Clinging means getting stuck on one thing; Letting go means being able to juggle things. The common view of Buddhism as doctrine of aloofness is a giant misunderstanding. Buddhism is a doctrine of sanity and excellence.

@AndreiVolkov I appreciate your point that it is important to understand Buddhism correctly. To help readers on that path, it'd be more useful if you could give specific guidance instead of saying "Buddhism is a doctrine of sanity and excellence." That statement will only resonate with those who already share your belief. For those who are evaluating whether Buddhism is a good doctrine for them to follow, you need to demonstrate that statement. So  let's do specific example. What does "letting go" of sex mean? What does the world in which everyone lets go of sex look like?

Letting go of sex means "you" don't obsess with sex, neither at pop culture level, nor at the level of individual day-to-day interactions. You may still have sex, both to procreate as well as to communicate your feelings, but you don't make it all important, don't ever let the urge overwhelm you -- as often happens. Letting go of sex means you having sex instead of sex having you. Society in which everyone lets go of sex is a healthy(ier) society. That's what I mean when I say Buddhism is a religion of sanity; we may not have answers to all questions beforehand but sanity is our flag, IMO.

Is by looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others we look after ourselves a good description of what "middle way" means?

@ChrisW, no it's a very small subset, only one aspect as it pertains to the question of altruism vs. egoism.

@AndreiVolkov No, I don't think Buddhism teaches two beliefs: one belief for the lay people, and another belief for monks only.  You are saying it didn't say that lay people should ___, but Buddhism teaches beliefs, it does not say "well, for lay people, there are different beliefs".

@動靜能量, for the most part, Buddhism teaches what behavior gets to what results, not beliefs. And because the goal is different (monks seek Enlightenment, while lay people seek good life), the practice too is different for them. E.g. monks are to eat once per day and lay people can eat as much as they want.

@AndreiVolkov you are almost like using "smart" words for the sake of your argument.  Yes some people in Buddhism have different goals and so the practice is different for them.  Some people go to temple to wish for peace for their family, some wish for their son going to the top university, some wish for making tons of money.  So what?  The goal can be different, and if you start saying for the lay people of Buddhism, they can do this and do that, you are using your words to fit whatever purpose you want.

@動靜能量 It is actually true that there are different rules for monks than for lay people. For example, the Five Precepts for lay people include "avoid sexual misconduct", which means that sex between a lawfully married couple is not misconduct; but there are many more rules for monks (more than 200 rules), including (at least for Theravada monks) no sexual intercourse at all.

@ChrisW I don't know if you can say there are different rules for the lay people and for the monk. For my whole life in touch with Buddhism in Asia, the teaching is always be as close as to Buddhism as possible. Now you add, well, there are different rules. If you do that to all religions, you can always explain things: you can always say, oh no, this rule in this ABC religion, it is not meant for the lay people, and you can get away with a lot of things, and use the religion rules to your advantage

@ChrisW also, I don't know if you can say '"avoid sexual misconduct", which means that sex between a lawfully married couple is not misconduct', because, if the saying is, "don't kill small, weak animals", I am not sure if you can then say "well, then, killing big, strong animals" is not the same as killing small, weak animals, so killing tigers, elephants, and whales is ok.

The guidelines for monks are stricter than for the lay. Period, end of story.

I have once seen Thich Nath Hanh in company of some monks of his order. If this is the middle way, where are the examples of the other extreme?

There are many different forms/sects of Buddhism.  Some are more "monkish" than others.  I've been following the Lotus Sutra and the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin, which advocates using our desires and attachments to fuel our enlightenment rather than eradicating them.
My view is that the whole priesthood/monk phenomenon was an aspect of history.  Cultural and historical, not core to the Buddhist belief system.  You need a group who takes on responsibility to help lead, but they don't need to be monks.  This is the kind of organization that is emerging in the Soka Gakkai, where I practice (sgi-usa.org).
Hope this helps!

If you find a branch of Buddhism without ceremonies and beliefs, you could easily avoid the type of imposed belief you are talking about.
Or if you are a brave soul, you could take the writings of as many true teachers as you have need of and put it into practice with no belief.
I would start with Roshi Suzuki that does not advocate for much beyond sitting with the beginner's mind
www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf
If you do not find that to your liking you could try Dogen who is quite verbose about his path.
If you want open minded, the Dalai Lama though thoroughly a Tibetan Buddhist embraces science, psychology, other religions and other people choosing a different way
This ceremony is the door to compassion. It is unlocking beginner's mind in an applied way.
http://www.dalailama.com/teachings/training-the-mind/generating-the-mind-for-enlightenment
Look at the flower sermon for the ultimate simplicity in Buddhism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon
There is no belief in that, just the experience of what is.