text:
Inter-relation between the four brahmaviharas?
I read once, online, someone (perhaps in the Tibetan tradition if that matters) saying that the four brahmaviharas are inter-related -- in particular, that too much of one is counteracted by a bit of another.
For example:

Feeling too sorry for someone (too much compassion/karuna) is counteracted by a bit of mudita (remembering the ways in which that person is virtuous or fortunate)
Similarly, too much of each of the other three is counter-balanced by a bit of each of the others

I was reminded of it by this answer ("in good there is seed of bad").
I don't remember the explanation I read, though, and I wasn't able to find the reference again.
Is that anything you've heard before? If you know the explanation but don't know a reference for it, that's OK too (I'd be happy to read just your explanation of it even without a reference).

Uppekkha is what is used to straighten Karuna. Not Muditha. Compassion can easily turn into sadness. When that happens you view the situation in terms of Karma and Vipaka: “All beings are the owners of their karma; their happiness and unhappiness depends upon their actions, not on my wishes for them.”
Metta(kindness) can turn into lust when practiced towards attractive women. Then you can use a mental technique like thinking of them as mothers, sisters, daughters or you can meditate on the repulsiveness of the body.

In the essay "The Four Sublime States" by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera, there is a chapter entitled "The Inter-relations of the Four Sublime States".
I quote a part of it below:
The translation used here: Love = metta, compassion = karuna, equanimity = upekkha, sympathetic joy = mudita. I would have preferred to translate mudita as "empathetic joy" rather than "sympathetic joy".

Unbounded love guards compassion against turning into partiality,
  prevents it from making discriminations by selecting and excluding and
  thus protects it from falling into partiality or aversion against the
  excluded side.
Love imparts to equanimity its selflessness, its boundless nature and
  even its fervor. For fervor, too, transformed and controlled, is part
  of perfect equanimity, strengthening its power of keen penetration and
  wise restraint.
Compassion prevents love and sympathetic joy from forgetting that,
  while both are enjoying or giving temporary and limited happiness,
  there still exist at that time most dreadful states of suffering in
  the world. It reminds them that their happiness coexists with
  measureless misery, perhaps at the next doorstep. It is a reminder to
  love and sympathetic joy that there is more suffering in the world
  than they are able to mitigate; that, after the effect of such
  mitigation has vanished, sorrow and pain are sure to arise anew until
  suffering is uprooted entirely at the attainment of Nibbana.
  Compassion does not allow that love and sympathetic joy shut
  themselves up against the wide world by confining themselves to a
  narrow sector of it. Compassion prevents love and sympathetic joy from
  turning into states of self-satisfied complacency within a
  jealously-guarded petty happiness. Compassion stirs and urges love to
  widen its sphere; it stirs and urges sympathetic joy to search for
  fresh nourishment. Thus it helps both of them to grow into truly
  boundless states (appamañña).
Compassion guards equanimity from falling into a cold indifference,
  and keeps it from indolent or selfish isolation. Until equanimity has
  reached perfection, compassion urges it to enter again and again the
  battle of the world, in order to be able to stand the test, by
  hardening and strengthening itself.
Sympathetic joy holds compassion back from becoming overwhelmed by the
  sight of the world's suffering, from being absorbed by it to the
  exclusion of everything else. Sympathetic joy relieves the tension of
  mind, soothes the painful burning of the compassionate heart. It keeps
  compassion away from melancholic brooding without purpose, from a
  futile sentimentality that merely weakens and consumes the strength of
  mind and heart. Sympathetic joy develops compassion into active
  sympathy.
Sympathetic joy gives to equanimity the mild serenity that softens its
  stern appearance. It is the divine smile on the face of the
  Enlightened One, a smile that persists in spite of his deep knowledge
  of the world's suffering, a smile that gives solace and hope,
  fearlessness and confidence: "Wide open are the doors to deliverance,"
  thus it speaks.
Equanimity rooted in insight is the guiding and restraining power for
  the other three sublime states. It points out to them the direction
  they have to take, and sees to it that this direction is followed.
  Equanimity guards love and compassion from being dissipated in vain
  quests and from going astray in the labyrinths of uncontrolled
  emotion. Equanimity, being a vigilant self-control for the sake of the
  final goal, does not allow sympathetic joy to rest content with humble
  results, forgetting the real aims we have to strive for.
Equanimity, which means "even-mindedness," gives to love an even,
  unchanging firmness and loyalty. It endows it with the great virtue of
  patience. Equanimity furnishes compassion with an even, unwavering
  courage and fearlessness, enabling it to face the awesome abyss of
  misery and despair which confront boundless compassion again and
  again. To the active side of compassion, equanimity is the calm and
  firm hand led by wisdom — indispensable to those who want to practice
  the difficult art of helping others. And here again equanimity means
  patience, the patient devotion to the work of compassion.
In these and other ways equanimity may be said to be the crown and
  culmination of the other three sublime states. The first three, if
  unconnected with equanimity and insight, may dwindle away due to the
  lack of a stabilizing factor. Isolated virtues, if unsupported by
  other qualities which give them either the needed firmness or pliancy,
  often deteriorate into their own characteristic defects. For instance,
  loving-kindness, without energy and insight, may easily decline to a
  mere sentimental goodness of weak and unreliable nature. Moreover,
  such isolated virtues may often carry us in a direction contrary to
  our original aims and contrary to the welfare of others, too. It is
  the firm and balanced character of a person that knits isolated
  virtues into an organic and harmonious whole, within which the single
  qualities exhibit their best manifestations and avoid the pitfalls of
  their respective weaknesses. And this is the very function of
  equanimity, the way it contributes to an ideal relationship between
  all four sublime states.


text:
Can someone provide explanation on dependent origination
According to this law, every phenomenon owes its origin to another
phenomenon prior to it. It may simply be expressed as “depending
on this, this originates”. An example of Dependent Origination in
nature is given below:
There being clouds in the sky it rains.
It having rained, the road becomes slippery.
The road becoming slippery, a man falls down.
The man having fallen down becomes injured.
Here a shower of rain depends on the clouds in the sky.
The road becoming slippery depends on the rain.
The fall of the man depends on the road becoming slippery.
The injury of the man depends upon his fall:
Conversely:
If there were no clouds in the sky, it would not have rained.
Then the road would not have become slippery.
Then the man would not have fallen.
Then he would not have become injured.
So this is understandable and clear to anyone. So can anyone explain (in simplified way)dependent origination step by step with practical examples?

You gave an example (of rain), which you said is understandable and clear to anyone. So what's the question? You seem to be asking a question which you already answered as part of the question?

To be honest I am not clear about "dependent origination" as (born as) Buddhist. The given example is just to illustrate the the way how to realize and understand it. I have enough wisdom to realize and understand above example and explain it to someone to help realize and understand. I am not telling that I am not totally understand "dependent origination". E.g I can understand how craving is linked to cling or grasp by experience. But I am not aware of how sankhara links with vinnana(some text say just consciousness and some say rebirth consciousness).

Ignorance  is the condition for mental formation.
Mental formation is the condition for consciousness.
Consciousness is the condition for name and form.
Name and form is the condition for the six senses.
The six senses are the conditions for contact.
Contact  is the condition for feeling.
Feeling  is the condition for craving.
Craving  is the condition for clinging.
Clinging  is the condition for becoming.
Becoming  is the condition for birth.
Birth is the condition for aging and death.
12  Aging and death is the condition for ignorance.

So CW as per above circle you can suggest me to meditate on above and realize and understand it myself. (If it is so I have to think hard on "dependent origination" and strive to realize it or do you gain some realization on it and support others to realize and understand.This is what I expect from this question.

So does "explanation of dependent origination" mean "explanation of the link between each of the 12 nidanas"? I.e. are you asking for a 12-part answer, with clear explanation of the link between sankhara and vinnana, and of the link between vinnana and namarupe; and of the link between namarula and sadayatana; etc.? If so I guess that (12 parts) is a long answer, so the question may be a "reference-request" question (i.e. asking for a reference to a good, clear description)?

If so I guess that (12 parts) is a long answer- While I request for simplified answer you mention it is complex. This prove that explain some thing clear and simplified way is so difficult and explain it complex way is easy. And fit into "ehi passika" (come and see) teaching. The reason I request simplified answer is to get support and wise prompt deep into Dhamma not only for me all who read this. I feel this way is more productive and efficient to reach realization.

Aging and Death is not condition for Ignorance tho, if it was the Arahant would have Ignorance.

It is the other way around, ignorance is pre-requisite condition for poor discernment, poor discernment is pre-requisite condition for wrong perception, wrong perception is pre-requisite condition for Liking[wanting] (same lvl abstraction/conjoined), Wanting is pre-requisite condition for Becoming

Ignorance has Lack of Development as nutriment or pre-requisite condition, Lack of Development of what? Five Faculties, Seven Factors of Enlightenment, Five Strenghts of a Learner.

okay, since you asked for a simple explanation... this is about as simple as I can make it:

Avidya: A newborn baby has no memories nor concepts, just a potential to learn.
Samskaras: Everything that happens leaves a trace, or imprint, on the baby mind.
Vijnana: As similar patterns happen again and again, baby begins to recognize them and classify in buckets by similarity and thus becomes minimally aware.
Namarupas: The baby begins to assemble recognizable features into individual objects.
Six doors: The baby begins to develop a notion of "here" and "there", and the doors connecting "here" with "there" (seeing, hearing etc.)
Contact: As objects disappear and reappear, the baby comes up with idea of "contact" or having the object.
Vedana: Baby notices that when some objects are present it feels good inside. So baby decides that this good feeling comes from the object.
Craving: From this, baby learns to miss a good object and to crave it again.
Upadana: As this craving becomes obsessive, the baby learns to make the contact its goal and to work towards the goal, in order to experience the good feeling again.
Bhava: As baby learns to crave, work towards a goal, and enjoy the gratification, it develops a notion of self or "I". Because it has the same obsessive thought of the goal from the initial desire, through working on it, and until receiving gratification. This obsessive craving becomes "I".
Jāti: From the notion of "I" comes self-identification with a living organism -- a human individuum.
Jarā-marana: From the self-identification with an individuum comes idea of death and million other problems.

The only real problem with this explanation... there is no baby! Baby is an object we learned to assemble. Which is why Buddha's original language is more precise, even if cryptic. "Ignorance" -> "Samskaras" -> "Vijnana" and so on. But if we put aside nitpicking about reification inevitable to any casual explanation, and just focus on the main idea, at least this explanation gives us a hint what Dependent Origination could be about.

This is a good and really simplified answer. and best fit into "come and see" and thanks very much for it and still I have to analyze and make me realized and understand it properly. Also I don't think babies never ask stupid questions once I ask  where did the colors of flower come from is not to easy question to answer even by good intellectual. Also I feel that you also experience some difficulties to make simplified answer than complex answer. this is so impressive and you have prompt me to reach deep in to it. Many thanks.  But i will raise counter questions very soon. Thanks and metta.

Yes I accept it “there is no baby" and It can be resolved. But your explanation is encouraging to step by step realization. You have opened a passage to deep Dhamma realization to any body. Truly I am struggling to deep realization of Dependent origination and I know it vital teaching of Buddhism. I just hold superficial understanding so this is very helpful me and any one who is interest in Buddhist teaching.

5 minute explanation

Ignorance includes the asava (out-flows) of primal sensual desire & (past) becomings (refer to MN 9). Ignorance flows out creating agitated sankharas.
Sankhara (kaya, vaci & citta sankhara) is in & out breathing, discursive (distracting) thoughts & perceptions & feelings (refer to MN 44). For example, when ignorance flows out, inwardly disturbed & agitated breathing & thoughts occur.
Ignorant sankharas capture consciousness. Consciousness becomes preoccupied with & a slave to the sankharas (refer to SN 22.53).
The mind-body (nama-rupa) is also captured & enslaved by the sankharas and "inclines" (namati) with the push of the ignorant sankharas (refer to MN 19, which refers to how the mind "inclines" with "inclination").
The sense organs are also polluted by the ignorance sankharas and thus incline towards seeking external objects of desire.
All of the above results in "contact with ignorance" (refer to SN 22.81) with external sense objects.
Feeling from contact (refer to MN 148).
Craving from feeling.
Attachment from craving.
Becoming, where the mind establishes itself in a sense-object (AN 3.76).

Birth, the production of the idea or convention of "beings" ("satta") from the beguiling appearance ('manifestation') of the aggregates, such as the ideas of "myself", "my mother", "my father", "my friend", "my enemy", etc; refer to SN 23.2 and SN 5.10.
Aging & death of "beings", such aging & death of "myself", "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my husband", "my child", "my favourite pop-star" (refer to SN 15.3).
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief despair & the whole mass of suffering because of the aging & death of imaginary "beings" superstitiously created from ignorance, craving & attachment (refer to MN 87).
For example, when people or aggregates who are strangers die, there is no suffering because no self-related-identities have been created by the ignorant mind.

There are these five clung-to-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clung-to-aggregate, feeling as a clung-to-aggregate, perception as a
  clung-to-aggregate, fabrications as a clung-to-aggregate,
  consciousness as a clung-to-aggregate. These five clung-to-aggregates
  are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One."
MN 44

The standard formula of dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) is given in SN 12.1. The definition of every nidana is given in SN 12.2.
In the standard formula of dependent origination, every nidana that comes after, depends on the one that comes before, as the condition for arising. When the nidana before ceases, the nidana after ceases too.
Ignorance or avijja is the force of nature that gives rise to the mind-body phenomena, and also gives rise to the underlying tendencies that drive us towards craving. It's the natural or evolutionary instinct that drives us towards survival, sensual enjoyment and individual existence.
Dependent on ignorance, volitional formations (sankhara) arises. These are the physical and mental processes. The physical processes here refers to breathing and the rest of the processes like heart beating etc. (i.e. kaya sankhara). Mental processes are of two types. One is the "input path" which processes inputs (the six types of feelings) and produces mental states or cittas (i.e. citta sankhara), while the other is the "output path" which produces actions and words (i.e. vaci sankhara). This is based on MN 44.
Dependent on volitional formations, consciousness (vinnana) arises. SN 35.93 tells us that dependent on eyes and form, eye-consciousness arises. The six types of consciousness are related to the six sense media.
The way I see it, consciousness is the mind-body connection (where mind is "name" and body is "form"), and it's supported by:

Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end.
Consciousness is
the middle. And craving is the seamstress,
for craving weaves one to
being reborn in one state of existence or another.
AN 6.61

Dependent on consciousness, name-and-form (namarupa) arises. Name-and-form represents a mind-body system that operates together, like software-and-hardware. And if you read the definitions of "name" (feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention) and "form" (form made up of four great elements), they read like definitions of parts of mind and body respectively.
The body is called "form" because it is the form-sensor, that senses external forms. The mind is called "name" because it is the name-assigner, that assigns names to the forms sensed by the body. So the terms name(-assigner) and form(-sensor) describe functions of the mind and the body in the combination of namarupa.
Name-and-form (mind-body) has a mutually dependent relationship with the six types of consciousness according to SN 12.67, like two sheaves of reed leaning on each other.
To put it another way, the mind-body system (name-and-form) depends on the mind-body connection (consciousness) and the mind-body connection (consciousness) depends on the mind-body system (name-and-form).
The nidana of sankhara that comes before consciousness, is defined as bodily formations, verbal formations and mental formations. These represent the basic functioning or basic operations of the body and the mind, as separated or independent operations. Then when body and mind connects, we get consciousness which gives rise to the mind-body system and the mind-body system in turn sustains consciousness.

Depending on name-and-form (mind-body system), the six sense bases (salayatana) arises. And then dependent on the six sense bases, contact (phassa) arises. And then dependent on contact, feeling (vedana) arises.
SN 35.93 tells us that dependent on eyes and form, eye-consciousness arises. Then, the meeting of the three (eye, forms, eye-consciousness) gives rise to eye-contact. Eye-contact gives rise to feeling (sensation) born of eye-contact. The same applies to the other sense media and their objects of sensation.
So, consciousness here, is the mind-body connection. Eye-consciousness plus the physical eye, gives rise to the eye base. And similarly for the rest of the sense bases. The six sense bases refer to the six sense organs working with the six sense-consciousness (mind-body connections).
Contact is the meeting of the three - eye, eye-consciousness and forms, or you can say it's the eye base meeting forms. Then this gives rise to feeling (vedana), which is the mental input captured from the sense media.
I see the six sense bases as the six types of consciousness scanning the input of the six physical sense media through the mind-body system. Then when they meet the six types of sense objects, we get the six types of contacts.

Feeling (vedana) which is the mental input based on the six sense media contacts are then identified by the faculty of perception (sanna) based on memory, and then thoughts are produced based on concept proliferation/ objectification-classification/ reification (papanca). How this works is explained in this answer with details about the train of thought arising from papanca by the mechanisms of vitakka and vicara. All this takes place in the mind (nama) part of the mind-body system (namarupa).
Also:

What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about.
What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates. What a person
mentally proliferates is the source through which perceptions and
notions due to mental proliferation impacts one
regarding past, future
and present forms cognizable through the eye."
MN 18

Next, dependent on feelings, craving (tanha) arises. Craving is a habit of reification (papanca) as explained in this answer. Reification or papanca is explained in this answer. There are 3 types of craving - sensual, becoming and non-becoming.
Clinging (upadana) arises dependent on craving. That's when the mind is attached to what it has experienced before, with respect to sensual pleasures and views. The mind has constructed likes and dislikes.
Existence or becoming (bhava) arises dependent on clinging. That's when the mind constructs worlds of mental formations (please see this answer), or perhaps you can call it mental realities. For e.g. a rich person may have a different mental world from a poor person. A man may have a different mental world from a woman. A person staying in one country may have a different mental world from a person staying in another country. Now, people are living with the mental reality of the Covid pandemic, which is a mental existence.
Then this gives rise to the birth (jati) of the mental idea of the self, or individual identity, for e.g. the mental identity of a rich white man by the name of "James", living in Canada, who works as a lawyer, and is married etc. Please see this answer. Here, we can tell the story of the "carrier of the burden" (SN 12.22) by the name of "James", how he was born, how he grew up etc.
The birth of the mental idea of the self gives rise to the rest of suffering i.e. aging, disease and death (jara-marana). "Death" here refers to the fear or terror of death, of the individual identity (e.g. "James"). An arahant (fully liberated one) becomes deathless, meaning he becomes free from the fear and terror of death of individual identity.  Also partially covered by this answer.

What about rebirth?
That refers to the cessation of the old mental individual identity and the arising of the new mental individual identity, from one mind-moment to the next mind-moment. The mind-moments cease and arise along with contact. So, this happens when one contact ceases and a new one arises. Craving is what sustains the continuity from one mental individual identity to the next.

Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second
end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the
seamstress, for craving weaves one to being reborn in one state of
existence or another.
Identity, reverends, is one end.
The origin of identity is the second
end. The cessation of identity is the middle. And craving is the
seamstress, for craving weaves one to being reborn in one state of
existence or another.
AN 6.61

“When a being has laid down this body but has not yet been
reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving. For
on that occasion craving is its fuel.”
SN 44.9

Please read this answer (south indian monkey trap) which explains the connection between ignorance and suffering, as well as why cultivation of wisdom is needed, to weaken ignorance, to diminish craving, which reduces suffering.
For the arahant (fully liberated one), please see this answer. Here, ignorance, craving, clinging, becoming or existence, birth and the rest of suffering are fully extinguished. However, for the living arahant, the five aggregates (and therefore also volitional formations, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense bases and feelings) are still operating without craving or clinging, and without burning with the fires of passion, aversion and delusion. When the arahant passes away, all of these ceases.

It is very simple, the difficult part is figuring out what are Clouds. Because until we know exactly what is a cloud we dont know exactly what causes its origination.
Conventional physics teach that Clouds are Made of up parts like Water, Water made up of Molecules, Those of Atoms and Those of sub atomic Particles which do not behave like matter at all, cant be said to exist independent of observation and are therefore difficult to study and understand with logic, therefore it is difficult to know real causes for origination of phenomena. Especially phenomena hidden like the mind which cannot be observed like a cloud can be, The Tathagatas know the Dependent Origination of All (see Sabba Sutta).

I am impressed with your answer up to one point. (therefore it is difficult to know real causes for origination of phenomena)- in single word "mystery" and yes I accept it with you. When you state (The Tathagatas know the Dependent Origination of All)- Yes I accept it with my "faith" as you. So you have lead me to mystery and gain more and more faith only  and not supporting to realize and understand. So do you think is this the answer to the question?

You are impressed with physics? Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’ MN 28

No I will be impressed with metaphysics also if there is any. Are  you suggesting me to impress both? Where we draw the line between physics and metaphysics?

words are like a map in the teaching, in the sense that we cannot explain words with words. All objects of objectification are conceptual and are not what we perceive ultimately, word is not the thing, color&shape are not the thing, the idea is not the thing. However we can use words to make sense of it, describe its function and characteristics. If what we experience is to be explained with words, the way it is done is to split concepts into Five Cathegories, read Aggregates, these further split into sub levels of abstraction.

If we call Aggregates Level 1 Abstraction, then level 2 Abstractions are:
Name&Form, Consciousness, Volitional Formations, Perception, Feelings.
Level 3 Abstraction will be delineation of these further into sub-levels of Abstraction, ie Eye-Consciousness, Ear-Consciousness.

Further delineated into: Ear Element, Eye Element, Consciousness Element
"Consciousness Element", it cognizes, further delineation is by answering "cognizes what?" And so it goes endless but we dont have to go endless, we just need essential framework that allows room for the concept of Unmade State, which would be Level 0 Abstraction.

Unmade State of the Aggregates, non Arising of Contact, which would be a Level 0, "Non - Abstraction" (mistake above as i wrote Abstraction lvl 0" non-abstraction is better.
So we need to make sense how Consciousness, Perception, Name&Form, Feeling and Volitional Formations are "Conjoined/Same in meaning" as Concepts. IE what one feels, that is cognized, the cognized is perceived, the perceived is discerned, the discerned is also cognized and so they are functionally useful ways of making sense of what is happening.

If your comments aren't explaining your answer then they're off-topic and you should avoid posting them. If your comments are explaining your answer then it's better to do that by clarifying or adding to your answer, instead of posting comments.

can anyone explain (in simplified way) dependent origination

No, I can not. And if someone can, that one is a new buddha.
Why I can't?
Because there are sakkāya-diṭṭhi in every step of your sample above. But dependent origination explaining your each-sample-step's elements that sakkāya-diṭṭhi misunderstanding them as attā.
So, it looks like you asking the doctor for "dear doctor, could you explain the chemical composition,  biological factor, and physic formula of each treatment guidelines' step, please. Also, could you explain them simply, like the treatment guidelines that you told me, please."
Why you still asking for the attā in the dependent origination which is taught to destroy attā-misunderstood?

Can someone provide explanation on dependent origination

Yes, tipitaka and commentary can.

The brief explanation of paṭiccasamuppāda are in S.N.
Nidānavagga(pāli | trans), and  K.N. Paṭisambhidāmagga
(pāli | trans).
The medium explanation of paṭiccasamuppāda is in Abhi. Vibhaṅgo
(pāli | trans).
The full explanation of paṭiccasamuppāda is in the path of
purification (pāli | trans).
The brief explanation of meditation steps' is in K.N.
Paṭisambhidāmagga, mātikā (pāli | trans), and
abhidhammatthasaṅgaha chapter 9th (pāli | trans).
The medium explanation of meditation steps' is in K.N.
Paṭisambhidāmagga, niddesa (pāli | trans).
The full explanation of meditation steps' is in the path of
purification, understanding section, the 5 last purification
(pāli | trans).

Do yo still not understand?
If you still not understand, it is because of translation version lacking, your ancient-buddhism-study-system knowledge lacking, or your tipitka-culture knowledge lacking.
While I use pāli version of pāli cannon, I almost never ask any questions about pāli cannons to the others. Because pāli cannons are very perfect in themselves. All questions and answers I need being inside there. I just to recite and memorize them before I learn them.
So, in tipitaka:

Buddha proclaims a Teaching that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the perfect meaning and phrasing.

Leigh Brasington recently released book called "Dependent Origination
and Emptiness" which is available for dāna from http://sodapi.leighb.com/ . It is heavily based on Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's dhammatalks on the subject, discusses various interpretations of the dependent origination, their shortcomings and strengths.

Depending co-arising verbaliced, read with proper attention:
not-seeing/not-regarding dependend, fabricating/composing,
fabricating dependend, recognizing/knowing,
recognizing dependend, mind-mattering,
mind-mattering dependend, by-standing,
by-standing dependend, touching,
touching dependend, sensing/feeling,
sensing dependend, longing,
longing dependend, supporting/entertaining,
supporting dependend, becoming,
becoming depending, standing,
standing dependend, then decaying, dying, ...
Again: Paccaya Sutta: Requisite Conditions

"Now what is dependent co-arising? From birth [Stand/standing] as a requisite condition comes aging & death. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth [Stand, standing] as a requisite condition comes aging & death.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth [standing]...
"From clinging/sustenance [supporting/entertaining] as a requisite condition comes becoming...
"From craving [longing] as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance [supporting/entertainging]...
"From feeling [sensing] as a requisite condition comes craving [longing]...
"From contact [touching] as a requisite condition comes feeling [sensing]...
"From the six sense media [by-standing] as a requisite condition comes contact [touching]...
"From name-&-form [mind- mattering] as a requisite condition come the six sense media [by-standing]...
"From consciousness [recognizing/knowing] as a requisite condition comes name-&-form [mind- mattering]...
"From fabrications [fabricating/composing] as a requisite condition comes consciousness [recognizing/knowing]...
"From ignorance [not-seeing (as it really is)] as a requisite condition come fabrications [fabricating/composing]. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From ignorance [not-seeing] as a requisite condition come fabrications [fabricating]. What's there in this way is a reality, not an unreality, not other than what it seems, conditioned by this/that. This is called dependent co-arising.
"And what are dependently co-arisen phenomena? Aging & death are dependently co-arisen phenomena: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation.
"And what are dependently co-arisen phenomena? Aging & death [decay] are dependently co-arisen phenomena: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation.
"Birth [Stand/Is-tence] is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...
"Becoming is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...
"Clinging/sustenance [Entertainment/Hold-on] is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...
"Craving [Longing] is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...
"Feeling [Sense] is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...
"Contact [Touch] is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...
"The six sense media [By-Standing/Receiver] are dependently co-arisen phenomena...
"Name-&-form [Mind-matter/Name-object] is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...
"Consciousness [Recognition/Awarness] is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...
"Fabrications [Composing] are dependently co-arisen phenomena...
"Ignorance [Not-seeing (as it really is) is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. These are called dependently co-arisen phenomena.
"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."

With not seeing comes fabrication
With fabrication comes aware
With aware comes name&matter
With name&matter comes Stand-by
With stand-by comes touching
With touching comes sensing
With sensing comes longing
With longing comes under-holding/entertaining
With under-holding comes becoming
With becoming comes Standing
With Standing comes Stress, Suffering and Fall
From birth as a condition, Suffering and Stress comes along.
And how is the cessation of Stress, Suffering and Fall?
(Good that Andrei Volkov modified his answer a little and pointed out an importance withit, since it is a major fault if doing or willing to bring an object, person, into play in this cain of cause and effect. So it's good to let go of that unuseful tries, out of faith for now, eternally. One does good to mark it as foolish way to try to be compassionate or over-smart while pulling Dhamma into the "dirt" of the world: e.g. identification)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

The answer what you looking for is very simple. What were you before becoming, a clean slate, although buddhist don't want to talk in terms of soul.
A clean slate of soul when comes into living embodiment it gathers knowledge which others have been put into it. It's called conditioning or samskaras. So what you put into the slate so your life becomes.
Then you search for that knowledge which removes the sankharas or conditioning altogether, you have land onto thing which exists before becoming I.e. the soul.
Then one knows with wisdom, the thing is never lost and not that it is now found. But the goal is responsible for search, which you already have.
As long as you are searching, you can't arrive at truth. When the search goes, one lands onto ones own light.
Dependent origination is like man is afraid of the shadow of his own light. That's the true delusion. He want to live in delusion because of not letting go of desires.
The real thing is that you are that Supreme Soul, before come into being and only witness to your actions.
You already have an answer. Without the answers questions don't come into be. So why do the supreme soul romanticise the stuff of ignorance and want to forget his own light? May be there is something tempting in darkness of your own desire, that keeps on cling to life. Or perhaps it's you who wants to play with words and remain as it is!
Sammasambodhi doesn't mean that he knows everything, but living the life of union with the Master I.e the soul.
So, ultimately those who awaken don't say 'I know' instead they say 'I know nothing'!

Could you quote the Buddhist scriptures or expert commentaries to support "thing which exists before becoming I.e. the soul", "The real thing is that you are that Supreme Soul" and "Sammasambodhi doesn't mean that he knows everything, but living the life of union with the Master I.e the soul"? These phrases don't seem Buddhist and seem to conflict with sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.

The phrase "sabbe dhamma anatta" includes within its scope each skandha (aggregate, heap) that compose any being. So, here they are talking of what is not ours. What remains after one finds each aggregate as impermanent? Who perceive that all aggregates are impermanent? Think over it. Dhammapada says: Discard the sense desire oh fool and realise the uncreated, unborn! If uncreated and unborn wouldn't exist then there is no freedom for born and created. There is no freedom from death and birth. Uncreated and unborn? Do you get really what it means?

In the Vinaya, Buddha said the Buddha's teachings would last for 500 years. Many Buddhists claim this did not come true therefore the Vinaya teaching is false. That means Buddha saying was not true and nowadays monks telling the truth. No. Buddha was right, what Buddhism is so famous nowadays for which Buddha actually have never ever preached!

The Buddha taught that even if there was no one to perceive it, the three marks of existence (dukkha, anicca, anatta) are true and would persist, because these are universal laws. Please see AN 3.136. And Nibbana as the uncreated and unborn doesn't refer to a person or soul or Supreme Soul. Nibbana is that which is experienced by the mind when it is completely free of defilements. It is peace and bliss. All consciousness is dependently arisen and impermanent in Buddhism. There's no Eternal Witness.

"Dependent origination is like man is afraid of the shadow of his own light." - this sounds like you're mocking the teaching on dependent origination.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Beliefs about the 14th Dalai Lama
What are the Tibetan Buddhist beliefs of the Dalai Lama being an incarnation of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara? Do all Buddhists agree with this idea?

The institution of the Dalai Lama, as an emanation of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, is officially recognized only by Tibetan Buddhism.
The concept of tulku where teachers like the Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama and Karmapa, may intentionally reincarnate again and again as custodians of certain religious lineages, is only found in Tibetan Buddhism. It's not clear if other Vajrayana traditions also have tulkus.
The Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara is found prominently in many Mahayana sutras, and has the ability to incarnate as any kind of being, including human, to help and teach others. But the Mahayana sutras do not identify the Dalai Lama as an emanation of Avalokiteśvara.
The Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, though present in temples in Theravada countries (probably due to Mahayana influence), is not found in the Pali Canon.

The Pali suttas teach a monk is to be scrutinized for mental states of greed, hatred & delusion.

There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion....
Canki Sutta

Therefore, all Buddhists do not agree the Dalai Lama being an incarnation of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara.

The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged today that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the Central Intelligence Agency, but denied reports that the Tibetan leader benefited personally from an annual subsidy of $180,000.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSOCT. 2, 1998

You might like this: Trimondi. Insider knowledge.

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


text:
Eternalism and Mahayana Buddhism
In this Wikipedia article on Arhat in Mahayana Buddhism, it is written:

Instead of aspiring for arhatship, Mahayanins are urged to instead
  take up the path of the bodhisattva and to not fall back to the level
  of arhats and śrāvakas. Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go
  on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the
  lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a
  deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the
  bodhisattva path, presumably when ready. According to the Lotus Sutra,
  any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path.

In this Wikipedia article on the Eternal Buddha, it is written:

In east-Asian Buddhism, the Buddha of the Lotus Sutra is regarded as
  the eternal Buddha. "The Tathagata´s Lifespan" chapter (ch 16) of the
  Lotus Sutra portrays the Buddha as indicating that he became awakened
  countless aeons ("kalpas") ago. The sutra itself, however, does not
  directly employ the phrase "eternal Buddha".
In China the Lotus Sutra was associated with the Mahaparinirvana
  Sutra, which propagates the tathagatagarbha-doctrine, and with the
  Awakening of Faith. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra presents the Buddha as
  eternal, and equates him with the Dharmakaya.

If the Arahant in Mahayana Buddhism goes into a deep samadhi after death, till he wakes up and continues the path towards Buddhahood, and if after becoming a Buddha, his personality can persist as an Eternal Buddha, then this shows eternalism in Mahayana teachings.
An Arahant who can go into deep samadhi after death (without a body) only to reanimate later implies the existence of a soul.
Furthermore, the story of Buddha Prabhutaratna from Wikipedia also has elements of eternalism:

"Great-Eloquence Bodhisattva" wants to see the Buddha in the stupa but
  Prabhūtaratna's vow makes it a prerequisite for showing his body that
  the Buddha who proclaims the Lotus teaching collects all his
  manifestations. At this point Shakyamuni summons from around the
  universe countless Buddhas who are his emanations, lifts the entire
  assembly into the air, and opens the stupa. Prabhūtaratna praises
  Shakyamuni and invites him to sit next to him. Shakyamuni then
  continues to preach the Dharma. In the 22nd "Entrustment" chapter of
  the Lotus Sutra, Prabhūtaratna and his stupa return to under the
  earth.

Eternalism (sāśvata-dṛṣṭi in Sanskrit) was rejected by the Buddha's original teachings on the Middle Path, as described by Ven. Dhammananda Mahathera's article (from here) excerpt below:

Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we
  understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find
  anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and
  continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they
  depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we
  cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the
  eternalist view is considered wrong or false.

My question is:
Does Mahayana Buddhism teach eternalism? If this is not the case, then what is the right interpretation of the Mahayana teachings on Arahant and the Eternal Buddha above?
In the question above, when I wrote "Mahayana Buddhism", I mean particularly in the context of the Lotus Sutra and the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

Does Buddhism require a Moggaliputta-Tissa or Nagarjuna, is what I currently wonder! :)

Several thoughts...
Mahayana is not a homomorphous teaching. It's a bunch of different schools, the only common theme of which is attempting to express The Truth in whatever crazy language that the recipient can understand. So you will see some Mahayana schools speaking about Eternal Buddha, or about Buddha Law, or about "True I", or a number of other topics that have some meaning for someone, and can turn into practice that will increasingly approximate "It", until they hopefully break through. All these different metaphors approach the truth in one way or another, they all have some sense in one way, and are false in another way. That's just the way with language unfortunately - any conceptual construct is always limited and onesided.
Another thought. Eternalism is a bad translation imho. I think a better term would be "transcendental substantionalism", as in, assuming that there is some magic substance or essence separate from the aggregates that lives on from one life to another.
If we assume, in modern terms, that material world, the world of energy transformation, and the world of information - are three ways to see the same world, and that as material forms arise and perish, energy and information transforms and fluctuates -- we can see that energy/information does not really "die" but it's not like it is "eternal" either. Then we can see how all these different metaphors were trying to point us to this truth, using whatever expressive means at their disposal, in the absence of better language we have today, like "information". Again, this is just yet another explanation, limited and onesided in its own way.
So when Lotus Sutra or Nirvana Sutra is speaking about Eternal Buddha - they just mean the Dharmakaya -- meaning, the information about Dharma latent in the world and spread around in little pieces, both as formal Dharma, as well as other sorts of hints and wisdoms. When this information accumulates in a single being in sufficient amount, and manifests itself as their way of living, we call that being a (Nirmanakaya) Buddha, and for the sake of explaining the nature of the phenomena we may employ the language of this being a reincarnation/manifestation of Eternal Buddha, and this can be useful to some people and confusing to others - but as long as we know what we are talking about, we will not be confused.
Can we call Dharmakaya eternal? Well in one sense, sure, it is not destroyed by individual deaths, and because it has its roots in the very nature of things, after all it's a teaching about how things work, it's inevitably "built-in" and is being discovered piecemeal by people in all times, even if formal Teaching is lost. In another sense, it's just a bunch of fragments, plus a potential to discover more fragments, so it's not even a "thing" to speak about, just a principle.

Here's what I have learned since asking this question ...
Some Theravadins accuse Mahayana Buddhism of eternalism or introducing God or Soul into Buddhism, where there is none.
Interestingly, some Hindu scholars have tried to use concepts that seem like eternalism in Mahayana Buddhism, to say that Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism is the same, and therefore, Buddhism is just a sect of Hinduism. In his book "Indian Philosophy: A Critical Survey" on page 63, Professor Chandradhar Sharma wrote about Mahayana Buddhism:

Buddha is here transformed into God and worshipped as such. He is
  identified with transcendental reality and is said to possess the
  power of reincarnation. The Buddha is the Absolute Self running
  through all the so-called individual selves. He is the Noumenon behind
  all phenomena.

On the other hand, another researcher, Indian Studies Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp wrote in "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study" that all Buddhist schools without exception uphold Anatta:

In the light of these researches, all attempts to give to the Atman a
  place in the Buddhist doctrine, appear to be quite antiquated. We know
  now that all Hinayana (sic) and Mahayana schools are based on the
  anatma-dharma theory. ... Nirvana being a dharma, is likewise anatta,
  just as the transitory, conditioned dharmas ... Nirvana is no
  individual entity which could act independently. For it is the basic
  idea of the entire system that all dharmas are devoid of Atman, and
  without cogent reasons we cannot assume that the Buddha himself has
  thought something different from that which since more than 2000
  years, his followers have considered to be the quintessence of their
  doctrine.

If we look at the Wikipedia articles, we find that all major Mahayana concepts do not contain a Self (the definition of which can be found in Glasenapp's essay). The Wikipedia statements below come with citations.
On the Eternal Buddha:

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra presents the Buddha as eternal, and equates
  him with the Dharmakaya.

Then if we look at Dharmakāya or "Dharma Body":

First, the dharmakaya is the collection of teachings ... Second, it
  is the collection of pure dharmas possessed by the Buddha,
  specifically pure mental dharmas cognizing emptiness. And third, it
  comes to refer to emptiness itself, the true nature of things.

Next on the Ādi Buddha or First Buddha or Primordial Buddha:

Ādi means “primordial,” not referring to a person but to an innate
  wisdom that is present in all sentient beings.

On Buddha nature or tathāgatagarbha:

The terms refer to the notion that the luminous mind of the Buddhas is
  inherently present in every sentient being, and will shine forth when
  it is cleansed of the defilements, c.q. when the nature of mind is
  recognised for what it is.
The idea of the tathagatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha
  that there is an innately pure luminous mind (prabhasvara citta),
  "which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements
  (agantukaklesa)" This luminous mind is being mentioned in the
  Anguttara Nikaya: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by
  incoming defilements."

Next if we look at Luminous mind or prabhāsvara-citta:

Luminous mind (also, "brightly shining mind," "brightly shining
  citta") (Sanskrit prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta, Pali pabhassara citta) is
  a term attributed to the Buddha in the Nikayas. The mind (Citta) is
  said to be "luminous" whether or not it is tainted by mental
  defilements.
The statement is given no direct doctrinal explanation in the Pali
  discourses, but later Buddhist schools explained it using various
  concepts developed by them. The Theravada school identifies the
  "luminous mind" with the bhavanga, a concept first proposed in the
  Theravada Abhidhamma. The later schools of the Mahayana identify it
  with both the Mahayana concepts of bodhicitta and tathagatagarbha. The
  idea is also connected with features of Dzogchen thought.

Based on the above, we can see that although superficially, Mahayana Buddhism seems to promote eternalism, but an in-depth analysis shows that all the grandiose literary extrapolations in Mahayana writings ultimately boil down to the simple concepts of the body of teachings (Dharmakāya), mind without defilements (luminous mind) and the potential for all sentient beings to become enlightened (Buddha nature). All these concepts do not have any eternal Self in them.

I'm not sure this is true:

Eternalism (sāśvata-dṛṣṭi in Sanskrit) was rejected by the Buddha's original teachings on the Middle Path, as described by Ven. Dhammananda Mahathera's article.

... or maybe it's not complete, i.e. the whole truth.
Because a counter-argument to that might be:

The "range" of a Buddha, and the existence or non-existence of a Buddha after death, are among the unanswered questions
The Buddha is associated with the Dhamma
The Dhamma is said to be akaliko (perhaps like, in the Pali canon, Nibanna is not anicca)

The Buddha's being associated with the Dhamma begins in the Pali suttas, and perhaps it's more explicit in the later trikaya doctrine.
I think it's the Dharmakāya that's viewed as eternal (or timeless) -- and I'm not sure it's wrong to say that, no more wrong than any of the other 6 qualities of the Dhamma.
This (above) may not be an orthodox view, it's just what I understand of it at the moment.


text:
What would a sotapanna do?
There are many arguments whether a sotapanna has a perfect morality/sila or not. But let's base this topic on this Sutta:

With what four factors of a stream enterer is he endowed?
...Is endowed with virtues that are not broken, not defective, not
  spotted, consistent, not blemished, not enslaved, praised by the wise
  as conducive to concentration and desired by the noble ones He is
  endowed with these four factors of a stream enterer....Anguttara Nikaya 9.27

Now, for example, a deadly worm is in the stomach of a sotapanna's child. The only thing to help his child is to kill the worm otherwise his child will die. With his perfect morality, what would a sotapanna do, will a sotapanna (naturally) let his child die?

He would take the kid to a doctor.

See also Trolley problem and its variants in Buddhist ethics -- what makes this question different is that one of the "people" in the question is a deadly worm instead.

See also Are buddhist allowed to kill mosquitoes

I am sorry I can't answer in this topic for you. However, I put it into the blog at this link. This answer can destroy your doubt. There was similar case in commentary which I think you will interest to read: http://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2018/01/profit-managementbodhisattaselfsatta.html

My guess is that a Sotapan would look into alternative removal of the worm but eventually probably get rid of it one way or another.

Without hesitation, kill the worm.
The sotapanna has overcome attachment to moral precepts and rules (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) and is therefore guided by the conscience developed in the heart.

Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
  [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
  developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
  the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.
Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal


text:
In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If so how can any Buddha help anyone to attain enlightenment?
In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If so, how can any Buddha help anyone attain enlightenment? Isn't the whole point of becoming a Buddha to help others to attain enlightenment?
It's like asking everyone in the country to become kings. Then there won't be any countrymen left to rule.
To give another analogy, imagine patients refusing to follow doctor advice saying that they want to become doctors first to help cure others. Then those future patients they are hoping to help would also have to refuse their help to try to become doctors themselves. At the end of the day, no patient makes use of any doctor and no doctor cures any patient. So why become a doctor in the first place?:)

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Your question is about where living beings come from. It's not related to Mahayana. If a Arhat doesn't return back, then eventually all living beings will become Arhats due to being teached by other Arhats - unless some "new" living beings keep appearing.

In Mahayana Buddhism, they assume that everyone is already a Buddha. Enlightenment (bodhi) is self-existing, it is our natural state. It is our true nature, our primordial face. The only problem is, we got alienated from it, lost connection with it - but only at the superficial level. Deep inside we are always enlightened, all we need is to connect the layers and remember.
So when someone attains enlightenment, they see everyone as enlightened already. They also see the confusion, or the illusion of confusion. And that's what they help the others to overcome.
It's like, you wanted to become free from slavery and you thought the only way to do that is to become a king. But then you realize that this sort of thinking is still a slavery thinking. You realize that in fact we're all already free, that slavery was a lie that we believed in only because of ignorance. But as you go around on your white horse helping others get this, some may mistake you for a king. And then it's up to you to either tell them the truth, or to play a king for their benefit, like an adult playing Santa for the sake of kids.

Title question asked by OP on Jan 14 at 11:42 ~

In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If so how can any Buddha help anyone to attain enlightenment?

Yes. For the 1st question.
I do not understand in logic, how the following 2nd question had to be asked. Explanation - by replacing terminologies with daily words:
In Medical Science (Mahayana Buddhism), do they expect everyone to become a healthy person (Buddha)? If so how can any Medical Scientist (Buddha) help anyone to gain (attain) health (enlightenment)?
In this replacing terminology practice - purposefully making it easy for OP used doctor-patient analogy, cannot one see the burble of asking the 2nd question? Or, it's still too hard to grasp once the healthy person replaced by medical scientist? Are scientists not persons, or a person not scientist? ...Maybe need more learning on Logic and Sets then.

Question content elaborated by OP on Jan 14 at 11:42 ~

In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If
  so, how can any Buddha help anyone attain enlightenment? Isn't the
  whole point of becoming a Buddha to help others to attain
  enlightenment?

This the same as title question, intriguing to read; yet to utilize what asked, enlightenment for human beings is a gradual process. 2500 years after the Buddha entered Nirvana, there are 7.442 billion (2016), only maybe a fraction as small as paramāṇu (micro-dust) enlightened, plenty works to do. The OP seems worried there not enough unenlightened persons left to let the Buddha enlighten them :).

It's like asking everyone in the country to become kings. Then there
  won't be any countrymen left to rule.

This is not a legitimate analogy. Countrymen vs Kings, ruler vs ruled... this is a Samsaric formula, which Buddhism, the pinnacle of Buddhism, dedicated to transform. For the Buddhist ideal, there no kings, neither ruled; everyone is his own king, his own master; not mastered by Mara, or other, or society, or greed/anger/delusion, or any mental affliction... etc.

To give another analogy, imagine patients refusing to follow doctor
  advice saying that they want to become doctors first to help cure
  others. Then those future patients they are hoping to help would also
  have to refuse their help to try to become doctors themselves. At the
  end of the day, no patient makes use of any doctor and no doctor cures
  any patient. So why become a doctor in the first place?:)

Again it's amusing to instance patient refusing doctor advice by claiming himself doctor to cure other first (??? / I commented, but being moved to chat). A patient aspired to be doctor doesn't make him a patient refused doctor advice, unless his mentally afflicted; a doctor can be sick so he a patient, a patient can be cured and then learning medication became the doctor... etc. etc.

The heart of Mahayana Buddhism is to aspire to become the Buddha, for that the realization greatest potentiality of any sentient being, especially Human Being. To be a Buddha is to regain the totality of one's beingness without defilement (but of course there more profound teachings about defilement is not defiled for what originally perfect can never be scathed). As a Buddha, naturally he will aspire for the greatest benefit of all sentient beings, the greatest most wondrous existence is being a Buddha - so a Buddha will help all sentient beings to attain Buddha-hood. Buddha = compassion = selfless love, just generalization; the mind of the Buddha is beyond comprehension, it said.
To produce a Buddha, the "everyone" (unenlightened beings) is the ingredient. Through helping others to attain liberation, a Buddha is born. Said in 《普賢行願品》 (The Aspiration of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra) that this whole is like the Bodhi tree, the leaves and branches the sentient beings, the root Prajna-paramita, the fruit the Buddha. Without any one part, that's not a tree any more. Help others attaining liberation from simply ridding illness (many real Buddhist practitioners possessed this healing power naturally), be their trustworthy friends, providing services, giving virtuous advice... to enlighten them, all go gradually or spontaneously.
Like, if you real wealthy, that must be when you can give to anyone in need; you a kind person, that must be when you showing your kindness to others; you good doctor, when have cured a patient with terminal illness. Likewise a Buddha a Buddha is by helping sentient attaining enlightenment.
There will always sentient beings be born into Samsara, for Samsara denoted cyclical recurring. Unless all sentient awake all at once in this Great Dream of Maya. Obviously from the beginning-less and endless of spatial/temporal dimension, this never happened, else we won't exist (are we the dream dreaming our existences or we dreaming the dream?? - Zhuang Zhou and his butterfly metaphor :). For the fact this never happened, I can surely infer it will never happen too, simply, Samsaric time is beginning-less and endless (I know many won't be able to understand at here - I will be misunderstood, again!!). So those who don't understand Mahayana will intercept here laden their lethal attack - liberation of all sentient beings a futile aspiration!!
Yes, futile; but that almost ensured there will be plenty of unenlightened sentient to be liberated (solved the OP's intrigue ;). It ensures anyone aspired to be the Buddha will have plenty and more than enough ingredient to work on :). Further, a futile attempt doesn't diminish the one who held the greatest aspiration - in fact the glorious of such spirit. Isn't there a popular gig: Impossible = I'm possible :)?
It could go on and on... to cut short and conclude, the enigmatic Mahayanists proclaim,
眾生無邊誓願度；(innumerable sentient I vow to ferry across)
煩惱無盡誓願斷；(endless fetters I vow to cut off)
法門無量誓願學；(countless Dharma gates I vow to study)
佛道無上誓願成。(unsurpassable Buddha Path I vow to accomplish)
These original Chinese Mahayanists are likely, crazy. Yeah.

Do not confuse the Chinese Mahayana Bodhisattva Samantabhadra with Tibetan Samantabhadra. Chinese one the handsome young man with beautiful clothes and adornments riding on white elephant; whilst Tibetan is blue-skin naked in copulating with his mate.
Chinese Mahayana Samantabhadra

Tibetan Samantabhadra

This must be the funniest ending on the entire site, but please be careful with jokes like that. Some people may think you're disparaging Tibetan Buddhism. I know you're not, but as moderator I must warn you and others that disparaging other views will not be tolerated.

Yes! You're right!!! Capisco! @AndreiVolkov

Again you took my analogies too literally and missed the essence of the question. By being cured I meant being enlightened. As in being an Arahanth. So what you are saying is becoming a Buddha is the only way to become a healthy person and Mahayana does not recognize an Arahanth as a healthy person who is able to teach others? Does Mahayana even acknowledge the 3 modes of attaining enlightenment? -Buddha, Paccekabuddha and Arahaths? Being a Buddha means to discover enlightenment for oneself without the guidance of another. How can any Buddha help any human if everybody has to become a Buddha?

Hey Sankha :). I dazzled, you're bright. You probably the top 0.1% amount your countrymen? Sure beat me in the ranking (too many super intelligent people amount the Chinese too competitive, gooosh!). I did logical examination on OP statements. A simile must in logical accord with the statement else is self-defeated (what am I talking???), Nagarjuna. You didn't ask Arhat in OP, skipped. But answered in chat, no? Mahayana is very clear of what an Arh, a Pac & a Bud, but incompleteness the Theravadin Samyaksambuddha understanding.

However, as said in chat, it's very good of you to ask :). It must be very hard to formulate the question for Mahayana concept a total alien I understood the confusion in the OP analogies. Basically Mahayanist is a fetish with limitless/endless/incomprehensible... etc. etc. these types of etymologies; to break concepts built the world, then see the true face of and yourself. There innumerable Buddhas, so are sentient; countless universes... Finally you sighted the palace, whether you think this must be a Disneyland toy-building, or too unreal to be true, you are getting closer, good :).

This answer is just my speculation, based on experience of medicine not based on Buddhist references.
Isn't the whole point of becoming a Buddha to help others to attain enlightenment?
I guess I don't understand your analogy.
The way I think it works is,

I'm ill and a doctor heals me
I'm grateful for my health and grateful to the doctor
I want to be able to better assure my own health, so I learn a bit of medicine
I want others to be blessed with good health too (or I assume they want that); I assume that everyone will be happy when everyone is liberated from illness

Meanwhile, even the doctors encourage me to learn a bit of medicine too:

Because they're busy and it's better to not require the doctors' attention unless you need them (i.e. better for everyone if yu're a bit healthy and independent yourself)
Because prevention is better than cure (better to know enough medicine and hygiene to avoid getting sick, than to become sick and need to be healed by a doctor)
Because the outcome (for the patient) is better when the patient (and their family) are relatively well-informed about medicine, and can understand and double-check and monitor the treatment.

In summary if I can help someone attain or maintain good health, isn't that a good thing?
There's also the idea that illnesses are a bit contagious. Helping the people around me to be healthy will help me, and helping myself helps the people around me (see also herd immunity).
It's like asking everyone in the country to become kings. Then there won't be any countrymen left to rule.
The Buddha decided not to be ruler.
Doctors too seem to me to be generally benevolent -- to the extent they want your obedience, it's your obedience to the dhamma (not to themselves) that they want, your understanding of and compliance with the prescriptions for well-being.
And a lot of countries aren't monarchies these days.
Then those future patients they are hoping to help would also have to refuse their help to try to become doctors themselves.
I think a big part of knowing medicine is knowing when someone needs to visit a doctor. Though I'm not a doctor I assume that even doctors don't refuse the help of other doctors when they need it.

I'm continuing this answer, from these comments that were originally posted under Andrei's answer:

CW -- Ordinary (i.e. non-Buddhist or pre-Buddhist) English language has a word "selfless", whose definition is "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own; unselfish" with synonyms "unselfish, altruistic, self-sacrificing, self-denying; considerate, compassionate, kind, decent, noble, public-spirited; generous, magnanimous, ungrudging, unstinting, charitable, benevolent, liberal, open-handed, philanthropic". I guess that can conceal conceit (e.g. "I'm much more selfless than you are!") but IMO it is an obvious avenue, for people who hope to become or to remain unselfish.
SK -- @ChrisW "I'm much more selfless" is a contradiction in Buddhism. Because when you say "I am", there's already 'self' implied. To say that those who work towards Arahathship are selfish is a complete misunderstanding of the Dhamma and meditation.

I didn't intend to imply that Arahats are selfish, and sorry it sounded that way. What I meant was that even without or before Buddhism I might think it ordinary and obvious for there to be a yana based on helping others, especially once it's decided that "selflessness" (or anatta) is a good thing (a beneficial doctrine). I'm pretty sure "service" and "ministry" are also Christian ideals (Christians too sometimes puzzle, and sects' doctrines disagree with each other, over how man co-exists with the divine, but being selfless and aspiring to be like Jesus is I think a standard ideal, especially in the early Church).
I don't mean that Buddhism is Christianity, just that the yana may be (it seems to be) analagous or at least comparable, and so it doesn't sound like a too-absurd idea, though it is a lofty ideal. Perhaps I'm culturally (i.e. from birth) predisposed to that as an ideal (i.e. taught that it is an ideal), so it doesn't sound absurd nor difficult to accept as doctrine (though when it's examined in detail it may be found to be a cause for wide schisms in Christianity, e.g. here: "every Christian has equal potential to minister for God [...] stands in opposition to the concept of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity")
See also Is there a compassion only Buddhist path?.
Finally I think what you're stuck (focused) on is the idea that there can only be one Buddha. But I guess the vow is less "me is going to become Buddha!", and is instead more like "sentient beings (without bounds) need salvation".

The Four Encompassing Vows
Masses [of] creatures, without-bounds,
  [I/we] vow to save [them all].
Anxiety [and] hate, [delusive-desires] inexhaustible,
  [I/we] vow to break [them all].
Dharma gates beyond-measure
  [I/we] vow to learn [them all].
Buddha Way, unsurpassable,
  [I/we] vow to accomplish [it]

SK -- Vipassana meditation is all about not seeing the world through ignorance and start taking each experience as it really is. In other words, stop doing wrong and start doing right. It has nothing to do with making a 'self' enlightened.

OK.
I think maybe this answer describes a beginning to the Mahayana.
For what it's worth I understand the vow (quoted above) to mean, not "making a self enlightened", but "acting in an unselfish (and unlimited) way" ... as well as "accomplishing" the path (which, "accomplishing the path", may be an ideal that's described in the suttas too).

You are taking the analogies too literally. By being cured I meant being enlightened. Once you attain enlightenment, you will not fall back again. Hence no need to bother the doctor again. That's what we call an Arahant in Theravada Buddhism. Once you become an Arhanth, you can help others attain enlightenment too. My question is why Mahayana Buddhism ask everyone to become a Buddha when the reason for becoming a Buddha is to help others attain Arahanthhood ?

It's worthy to think about in how far one is still just another Bodhisattva, no matter which wisdom or vehicle one calaims to be ones own... ;-)
It's always very tricky to like to stay in the same boot, isn't it?
And then a sublime smile on ones smart account might fade to getting disenchanted in regard of ones smart found, doesn't it? Well then, if not, take another turn, Boddhisattva to become one seeking maybe just after Awakening, a Bodhisatta!
Or should you be called a healed one, doctor for trade and livelihood?

Can one trace the classical "Bodhisattva(-ideal)" in the picture?
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

Thanks for the effort but I don't understand your answer

Sure? There is a different between can and like, Nyom @SankhaKulathantille May I give a hint: easy is it to see the incapables of others, faults of other.

No i didn't mean it as an insult. I just can't get anything meaningful from your answer.

No seeing does not nessesary mean to be an insult and provoking does not nessesary mean to disturbe good. How many Theravadins do you know which do not actually walk the Mahayana path, Nyom @SankhaKulathantille ?

That's still not an answer

Isn't in that case, Theravadin nonsens as well? Why put it under a lable, that incapacity to renounce, that very craving? @SankhaKulathantille

Still don't understand you :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Thats usual and the reason for wandering on and delight in it., @SankhaKulathantille wanting others to awake.

Fell welcome here Bodhisatta Pfad (bodhisatta magga)

@SankhaKulathantille I guess Samana Johann is saying, 1) thinking about oneself as "just another Bodhisattva" is a cure for conceit, and its being the Buddha's dharma (not "my" dharma). 2) a joke 3) then you (must) get disenchanted of the thought that you're clever, otherwise you're reborn 4) I think (I guess) the picture is meant to be the world as-it-is, ugly and chaotic, in which there's no room for you to be (to look like or act as) a classical, heavenly, enlightened being.

@ChrisW None of those statements is an answer to the question.

For one who desires to grasp (a view), release is no answer. Nyom Chris is mostly very quick is understanding, stick with him.

Terminology
To answer this question correctly it is important to understand that
Prasangika-Madhyamika Mahayana distinguish the attainments of Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas and Buddhas.
In short, Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas are those beings who have attained nirvana with remainder in post-meditative equipoise. While in meditative equipoise it is said they have attained nirvana without remainder.
It is said that Buddhas on the other hand have attained nirvana without remainder regardless of whether they are in meditative equipoise.
So what is the difference between nirvana with and without remainder? Well, both include the complete cessation of true suffering and the elimination of the conception of true existence, but the nirvana with remainder is said to include obscurations to knowledge. In other words, Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas have not obtained the omniscience of the Buddhas.
It is taught in Mahayana that only the nirvana of a Buddha (a non-abiding nirvana) eliminates the obscurations to knowledge that obscure omniscience.
To further distinguish, the Bodhisattva is said to embark on the path to full enlightenment (non-abiding nirvana) for the sake of suffering sentient beings. An Arya being is someone who it is said to have had a direct realization (non-conceptual) of emptiness while in meditative equipoise.
More detailed terminology can be found in this answer. Now, we are in a better position to answer your question(s).
In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha?
Yes, although I think expect is not the right word. It is more like everyone has the (eventual) capacity to achieve non-abiding nirvana or to become a completely perfected fully awakened being. However, in this very life it is more appropriate for some beings to strive for something less than the Bodhisattva ideal.
If so, how can any Buddha help anyone attain enlightenment? Isn't the whole point of becoming a Buddha to help others to attain enlightenment?
The Buddha is in the perfect position to help others attain enlightenment, but it is still up to each sentient being to do the work. In other words, the Buddha cannot do the work for us. That said, Buddhas are unparalleled in their ability to help sentient beings. Their abilities far exceed those of Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas in that they possess omniscience and therefore know perfectly how to help transmigrating beings.
It's like asking everyone in the country to become kings. Then there won't be any countrymen left to rule.
Buddhas are not kings though nor do they rule over sentient beings. Neither are Sravakas or Pratyekabuddhas for that matter.
To give another analogy, imagine patients refusing to follow doctor advice saying that they want to become doctors first to help cure others.
Ah, I think this gets to the crux of the question! If I understand you correctly, the question is how can Bodhisattvas refuse to become Sravakas or Pratyekabuddhas and instead insist upon becoming Buddhas instead? If everyone followed the Mahayana, then we'd all be refusing to become enlightened before we helped everyone else to do so first?? Like if we were all too naively polite to pass anyone else through the door of liberation, then no one at all would pass??!!
I think this is a misunderstanding. The Bodhisattva path does not foreclose Bodhisattvas from reaching liberation as an Sravaka or Pratyekabuddha before continuing on to become a fully enlightened perfect being. That'd be absurd and silly. We also do not posit that after one becomes an Sravaka or Pratyekabuddha in this very life that with the breakup of the body that these beings cease to exist in any way and are therefore unable to continue on to attain full and complete enlightenment. Much the opposite! The difference is the motivation. The Bodhisattva wished to attain enlightenment and pacification of the afflictions in this very life, but not for oneself; the motivation is to do so for the benefit of other sentient beings.
The whole point of the Bodhisattva path is to cultivate the wish to help sentient beings in the best way possible and then to realize that becoming a Buddha is the perfect way to accomplish this. Moreover, it is only through the Bodhisattva motivation that is possible for one to attain the full and completely perfected enlightenment.
Then those future patients they are hoping to help would also have to refuse their help to try to become doctors themselves. At the end of the day, no patient makes use of any doctor and no doctor cures any patient. So why become a doctor in the first place? :)
I hope you agree that the above explanation renders this a misunderstanding. It is not the case that Bodhisattva's play an absurd game of "no, no, after you! no, no, after you!" with each other on the path to a completely perfected full enlightenment :)
The Bodhisattva Vows include a vow not to disparage The Fundamental Vehicle (Theravada)
Here is Venerable Thubten Chodron on the importance of the Fundamental Vehicle even for those aspiring towards full enlightenment:

In a previous vow, we want to abandon criticizing the Mahayana and
  throwing it out. Here, it is criticizing the Theravada and saying,
  “Oh, we don’t need to practice any of those teachings. We’re great
  Mahayana practitioners! The Theravada tradition doesn’t help you
  abandon attachment. It won’t get you liberated. We don’t have to
  practice those teachings.” That’s completely incorrect. The Mahayana
  is built upon the foundation of the Theravada. Everything that you
  find in the Theravada is found in the Mahayana. It is like the
  building blocks. Some people think that if you practice this
  tradition, you don’t practice the other one. It is not like this.
If you practice Mahayana, you have to practice what’s taught in the
  Theravada vehicle.

Emphasis mine.
Also, if you look at this answer you'll see that there is a specific vow that Bodhisattvas take which abandons "believing and saying that followers of the Mahayana should remain in cyclic existence and not try to attain liberation from afflictions."

Then what's the difference between Theravada and Mahayana in this regard? Theravada does not discourage people to aspire for Buddhahood if they prefer it. The Buddha is omniscient in Theravada too. Pacceka-Buddhas and the Arahaths are not.

Mahayana does not discourage people from aspiring to Arhat or Pratyekabuddha either! The fundamental vehicle (what we call Theravada) is considered a completely valid vehicle and in fact it is a breaking of the Bodhisattva vows to disparage it. Further, we take it as fact that not everyone should follow the Mahayana and that the Fundamental Vehicle is more appropriate for some and we say this is why the Buddha taught both. I think @AndreiVolkov was saying as much above...

In general, I think the book Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions does a good job taking care to state the differences between the traditions while dispelling a lot of the misunderstandings. Also, have a look here: https://thubtenchodron.org/1993/06/four-binding-factors/ and see Root Vow 14

So you are basically saying that Mahaya does not encourage everyone to aspire for Buddhahood, but it encourage a  selected handfull to become a Buddha while encouraging the rest to attain Arahanthhood?

I would not put it like that. I would say that just as you say Theravada does not discourage people to aspire to Buddhahood if they prefer it, just so Mahayana should not discourage people to aspire to liberation by becoming an Arhat or Pratyekabuddha if they prefer it :)

In other words, Mahayana neither teaches nor encourage people to attain enlightenment within this life? :)

No, the Mahayana traditions include the Fundamental Vehicle or Theravada and people are encouraged to attain liberation or enlightenment according to the disposition and abilities of the person much like Theravada.

I neither deny nor condone purported Mahayana practitioners who have belittled or denigrated the Fundamental Vehicle in the past or in the here and now, but in my tradition of Mahayana doing so is strictly verboten. Much the same way I'm aware of some purported Theravada or Fundamental Vehicle practitioners who have belittled or denigrated the Mahayana. To my mind, the fault is limited and lies only with those who have done so and not with other practitioners.

There's a big difference between saying that Mahayana includes Theravada for the sake of the argument and Mahayana monks seriously teaching meditation to the lay people, guiding them to attain enlightenment within this life.

@SankhaKulathantille I'm not sure how I can prove my sincerity to you or that I'm not just saying that Mahayana includes Theravada for the sake of the argument. Also not sure why you doubt it? Can you say more about Mahayana monks and teaching lay people how to meditate or about guiding them to enlightenment? I don't understand what you are after with those references...

@YesheTenley I'm guessing Sankha's premise is that if you become enlightened then you won't be reborn thus can't become a Buddha; and that, therefore, Mahayana teaches a postponed enlightenment (so people can be reborn a Buddha); conversely, Theravada (by "seriously teaching meditation") teaches people to become enlightened a.s.a..p. and preferably in this life. Hence his saying (I paraphrase) "there's a difference between Mahayana paying lip service to Theravada as a valid path, versus its actually teaching people to become enlightened in this life."

@ChrisW ah, maybe that is the case. well, at that point maybe we'd have a genuine disagreement. My tradition does not say that an Arhat or Pratyekabuddha is incapable of then becoming a completely perfected being. In other words, we distinguish between nirvana and enlightenment. Most acutely, nirvana without remainder vs nirvana with remainder.

I may be getting wires crossed (confusing one topic with another), but I do think that was the premise of this question of Sankha's, Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana? (which you could answer separately).

Thank you. Will answer when I can, but there does appear to be a great deal of misunderstanding of the Mahayana at work to my mind...

@ChrisW Yes, that's what I was saying. Yeshe, It's not about your sincerity in person. I would also say that by making such large community(53% of all Buddhists) aspire for Buddhahood instead of a selected few who are worthy, Mahayana is actually hampering progress of Gauthama Budddha Sasana.   Once you become an Arahanth, it's the end of Samsara. There's no more chance or the inclination to become a Buddha.

@SankhaKulathantille please see my updates as well as an answer about whether Bodhisattvas discourage enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana. In fact, there is a specific vow we take not to do this.

@YesheTenley That still doesn't answer "making such large community(53% of all Buddhists) aspire for Buddhahood instead of a selected few who are worthy". This basically means significantly reducing the number of people who would otherwise try to attain enlightenment under Gautama Buddha Sasana.

Not everyone who practices Tibetan Buddhism is a practitioner of the Mahayana just like not everyone who practices Theravada is follows the Sravaka vehicle. In my tradition, people are encouraged to follow the vehicle which is suitable given their capabilities. We don't "make" anyone follow any particular vehicle. It is up to the individual and all teachers can do is try to give wise council. This does not mean that wise council is in every case and every sentient being to advocate for the Bodhisattva vehicle. Otherwise, I have no idea where you get your 53% number...

@YesheTenley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana
"The Mahāyāna tradition is the largest major tradition of Buddhism existing today, with 53.2% of practitioners, compared to 35.8% for Theravada and 5.7% for Vajrayana(Tibetan)". Only a  handful of people aspire to be a Buddha in Theravada tradition. But not because they are encourage to do so. In comparison, Mahayana Buddhism encourages the followers to aspire for Buddhahood on a mass scale and places very little emphasis on working to attain enlightenment within this life.

The sourcing for that figure apparently comes from this and the methodology is completely unknown: http://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/wrd_default.asp I would not place much stock in it.

@SankhaKulathantille Regardless, if you look at the updated answer you'll find that it is not the case that Bodhisattvas place, "very little emphasis on working to attain enlightenment with this life." In fact, it is exactly the opposite! Bodhisattvas work to attain enlightenment as fast as absolutely possible and to pacify the afflictions in themselves as fast as absolutely possible. Bodhisattvas must pacify the afflictions in themselves in order to help sentient beings in the best way possible. We take a vow to do so and I've cited and linked to that vow.

@SankhaKulathantille there is nothing in the Mahayana that says that Bodhisattvas should not attain enlightenment as fast as absolutely possible in this very life. The difference is the motivation for doing so: a Bodhisattva's goal is not to achieve pacification of the afflictions to end their own suffering and achieve their own liberation, rather the goal is to do this with motivation to help sentient beings. Nevertheless, pacification of the afflictions and enlightenment within this very life as fast as possible is the goal. Hope this helps to clarify.

Also, it should be noted that Tibetan Buddhism is not the same as Mahayana and neither is Chinese Buddhism or even Japanese Buddhism. Rather, the distinction is between the pali tradition and the sanskrit tradition. Tibetan Buddhism (and Chinese/Japanese too) follows the latter. The sanskrit tradition contains the fundamental vehicle as well as the great vehicle and the secret vehicle. IOW, just because someone identifies themselves as Tibetan/Chinese/Japanese buddhist does not make them a practitioner of the Bodhisattva ideal or Mahayana.

Now, do some teachers in all traditions give incorrect encouragement to individuals to follow vehicles that are not suitable for them? Absolutely! For instance, HHDL and others have criticized certain Tibetan lamas for giving secret tantra initiations to those not suitable for the secret vehicle. And I'm sure that some teachers in the Theravada have incorrectly diagnosed the abilities of some students and encouraged them to a vehicle they are not suited for. But it is very hard to speak in general terms here and label entire traditions as uniformly guilty of this without making an error.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Yes. In The Diamond Sutra:

...all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final
  Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death...

How is this an answer to the question?

The question was In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? My understanding of this passage is the Buddha will help every living being become a Buddha.

How can a Buddha help others attain enlightenment when they also have to foregore their enlightenment to help others?

You are making an assumption. Part of my daily practice is a Bodhichitta prayer which includes, "May I become a Buddha to beneﬁt all sentient beings." A fully enlightened Buddha is the most capable source of help to those of us suffering in samsara.

I do not think you understand my question. How do you you help anyone if they also want to become a Buddha?

i like this answer, very Ch'an/Zen-minded. wordless.