text:
What is the meaning of the pali word "Viveko"?
I was reading through some Suttas and a word solitude was found. I looked up the original pali sutta for the word and found that word "Viveko" is getting translated as solitude.
I have a sanskrit background and I studied sanskrit when I was in 8th standard. The word Viveko seems to have been derived from the sanskrit word vivek.
Vivek means discretion , wisdom , true knowledge,investigation , consideration etc..but it does not mean solitude.(Solitude means privacy)
Here is the sutta which uses the word solitude :

Two thoughts occur to him, The Tathāgata, the Awakened One Who endured
  what is beyond endurance: Security (for beings) was the first thought
  spoken of, Solitude was the second announced.

Its pali version is as follows :

“Tathāgataṃ buddhamasayhasāhinaṃ,  Duve vitakkā samudācaranti naṃ;
  Khemo vitakko paṭhamo udīrito,  Tato viveko dutiyo pakāsito.

My question is : What is the meaning of the pali word "Viveko" ?

According to this wisdomlib.org page, "viveka" in Pali means:

viveka : (m.) detachment; seclusion.
(Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary
Viveka, (fr. vi+vic) detachment, loneliness, separation, seclusion;
  “singleness” (of heart), discrimination (of thought) D. I, 37, 182;
  III, 222, 226, 283=S. IV, 191 (°ninna citta); S. I, 2, 194; IV, 365
  sq.; V, 6, 240 sq.; A. I, 53; III, 329; IV, 224; Vin. IV, 241; Sn.
  474, 772, 822, 851, 915, 1065; Nd1 158, 222; J. I, 79; III, 31; Dhs.
  160; Pug. 59, 68; Nett 16, 50; DhsA. 164, 166; ThA. 64; PvA. 43; Sdhp.
  471.—viveka is given as fivefold at Ps. II, 220 sq. and VbhA. 316, cp. K. S. I. 321 (Bdhgh on S. III, 2, 8), viz. tadaṅga°, vikkhambhana°,
  samuccheda° paṭippassaddhi°, nissaraṇa°; as threefold at Vism. 140,
  viz. kāya°, citta°, vikkhambhana°, i.e. physically, mentally,
  ethically; which division amounts to the same as that given at Nd1 26
  with kāya°, citta°, upadhi°, the latter equivalent to “nibbāna. ” Cp.
  on term Dial. I. 84. See also jhāna. Cp. pa°. (Page 638)
(Source): Sutta: The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary

There is a sutta by this name, Viveka Sutta, or the sutta on seclusion.
According to Palikanon.com on viveka:

viveka
'detachment', seclusion, is according to Niddesa, of 3 kinds:
(1) bodily detachment (kāya-viveka), i.e. abiding in solitude free
  from alluring sensuous objects;
(2) mental detachment (citta-viveka), i.e. the inner detachment from
  sensuous things;
(3) detachment from the substrata of existence (upadhi-viveka).
In the description of the 1st absorption,
the words "detached from sensuous things" (vivicc' eva kāmehi) refer,
  according to Vis.M. IV, to 'bodily detachment';
the words "detached from karmically unwholesome things" (vivicca
  akusalehi dhammehi) refer to 'mental detachment';
the words "born of detachment" (vivekaja), to the absence of the 5
  hindrances.

This book excerpt discusses "viveka" and its different meanings in Pali and Sanskrit. It's too long to quote here.

I think I know part of the source of the problem, you have "discovered".
The words in the Suttas, especially the popular often-used words, have undergone a transformation, via the subsequent use by the Non-Buddhist sages. The presentations of the Hindus, Vedanta, etc., is markedly different.
Also, if you want to check out a root source, I recommend a Sanskrit dictionary -- one that includes ancient uses of the word. When I saw your example, "Viveko", I immediately thought of "Swami Vivekananda."
So, my main point is that these words used in the suttas have naturally over time fallen out of use, or the meaning have been gradually altered, because of changes in the culture of the language users.
Here is a list of some interesting Sanskrit/English websites:

Online Sanskrit Dictionary
Indology: online dictionaries and thesauri
This one is my favorite, as it give very long lists of different words with very similar meanings: Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit
I just put in solitude and did Sanskrit to English search.
I got many sanskrit words, including:

विविक्त  n.  vivikta solitude

Here is an interesting article which mentions a science that studies how Sanskrit Language has changed: Setting the record straight - Indian historical linguistics
Monier Williams Online Dictionary
A practical Sanskrit dictionary (MacDonell)

You can look for more online sources.
Here is one Pali/Sanskrit/English dictionary for you:

The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary

Good Luck.

A little tip about markdown: to get a soft linebreak you need to have two spaces at the end of a line before hitting Enter once. To get a paragraph you need to hit Enter twice. Most people on the StackExchange network prefer to use paragraphs, as it makes it easier to see when one point ends and another begins. Currently your answer is quite hard to read. It would be nice if you could [edit] it to introduce some breaks as you seem to have intended originally. Because of your indentation and spacing at some points I don't know how to edit your answer while respecting your intentions.

@Secespitus I changed the formatting. Soft line-breaks are rarely needed -- I use them only for verse; otherwise I use paragraphs (for which the markdown is simply an empty line between paragraphs), and/or lists (marked by a hyphen at the start of a paragraph). I also like to include the title of the referenced page in each hyperlink (makes it easier to find the page again if the URL changes).

@ChrisW Thanks. Personally I never use soft linebreaks, but I know some people prefer them, which is why I always mention them when seeing markdown like the original version here had.


text:
As a lay follower how to deal with uncontrollable sexual urges?
I have totally refrained from sexual misconduct and after reading the answers about Masturbation to the previous question on this site I have even refrained from that. Also, I have practically zero sexual thoughts during meditation.
But you see, as we eat food, the body automatically produces semen which is beyond our control. This accumulates and as the epididymis gets full either it ends up in a nightfall or heightened sexual urges which then gets beyond control.
How to deal with this problem? Do monks face this problem?

I think this is a duplicate of Dealing with Lust and/or Sexual Desire, Masturbating and Asuba Bawana and maybe others, isn't it?

I checked them, I think it's not duplicate, as, wrt the first question, I am not asking about dealing with pornography and masturbation, I have crossed that, and wrt to the second question, the lust in question is not regular, its some kind of 'lust attack'. Though the answers somewhat answer my question. I might suggest not close it.

Is the main/only difference (between this question and the others) what you described in the 2nd paragraph of this question (which I didn't really understand)?

Yes you can say that. What it says that hiw tobdeal with lust that is not much of psychological but a byproduct of biological processes.

Why did you stop with masturbation in particular? If  you are spiritually not that developed (meaning that you have no good emotional replacements or not much experience in vipassana), when you live in an environment where you are constantly exposed to the opposed sex, thoughts/urges will inevitably come up and it's not wise to surpress them or feel guilty about them. If you haven't set a specific goal and seen its advantages, your restraint in conduct & the motivation & determination will be short-term. We don't know if all monks live celibate & if so happily? We only see them in videos.

Friedrick, I suggest that you gather modern information about masturbation because your ideas seem to be incorrect. There is no such thing as wasted semen. Also, I suggest you to question your beliefs about your guilt. Prof. Windy Dryden published a lot of helpful guides connected with cognitive behavioural therapy in how to deal with negative emotions. The most important points you better learn is to hold flexible beliefs. These contain of self/other & world acceptance and non-dogmatic beliefs ("I would/nt like to have X but there is no law of the universe that I MUST/MUST NOT GET IT

@Val whats the name of specific book? There are many by him. Also I read daniel goldman about managing emotions, it doesnot help me as much as meditation does.

In short, it is all about beliefs you hold. As humans we have preferences, values and goals (like being healthy, getting along with others, being happy etc). These are all fine if they are not commandments that MUST happen because we all know that sometimes in life our   preferences get frustrated. If this happens it makes sense to feel healthy negative emotions like sadness or regret (instead of depression & guilt respectively). These healthy emotions stem from believes that state that you have a strong desire but it must not necessarily happen & it's not the end of the world. Pm for question

@Val how to PM? Also i used the word 'involuntary', not matter what i believe, the feeling pops up without control. Open up a chat room. We chat.

By the way, do you speak german?

@Val No, I don't...its google translate.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I am online....

@Val In a comment you said, "If you haven't set a specific goal and seen its advantages". I think there's some truth in that (which I didn't touch on in my answer), I don't know if that's something you could make into an answer.

What it says that how to deal with lust that is not much of psychological but a byproduct of biological processes.
I read some people describe it as some kind of "physical need", but I don't buy into that theory.
I suppose it's more like an itch, where if you stop scratching then it stops itching after a while.
An itch too is a "byproduct of biological processes": but so what.
I suppose you can "deal with" (or avoid) this problem via a combination of "psychological" measures (e.g. guarding the senses to avoid attaching to objects of sexual desire, e.g. to sights and ideas and bodily sensations); and maybe "physical" measures (e.g. having some other physical exercise, and enough sleep); and maybe "emotional" too (e.g. feeling happy with things as they are); and perhaps "conceit" i.e. comparing yourself to other people (e.g. "they don't, and I can be like them" -- see here and here).
There are other "psychological" suggestions too (e.g. meditation on foulness of the body, graveyard meditation) in the linked topics. But maybe that style or topic of sustained thought is a raft i.e. you don't need it after you arrive on the other shore (i.e. after cessation).
Perhaps people's bodies vary from person to person as well as from time to time, but I'm pretty sure that Buddhism considers food for example to be some kind of necessity, but not lust.
Maybe "the control of urges" is learned over time, e.g. growing from being a teenager to being adult.
Do monks face this problem?
Maybe not: the Vinaya considers it an offence.
Or, who knows, maybe they do: I've also read claims that few monks really live according to the Vinaya.
I once read of a monk (of Western origin) who suicided after complaining of priapism or satyriasis (hypersexuality), and dysentery (reference) -- but I hope that's an abnormal experience.

Just because the Vinaya calls an act an offense doesn't mean that monks do not experience an urge, after all they too are just human beings. One cannot by an act of will stop sexual interest. It is by cutting the cause that will lead to disinterest and that happens at the 2nd stage of enlightenment (once returner)

@Val I thought the question wasn't whether there's ever an urge, but the question says that there are "heightened sexual urges which then gets beyond control" -- I don't know to what extent that's entirely true, and should accepted as an unalterable truth. To the extent that it is true, I suppose the reference given at the end of OyaMist's answer becomes relevant. Perhaps it's a matter of how to interpret the word "urge": i.e. if you have and act on an urge, then is that or isn't that the same as acting "intentionally"?

Stuck on the horny of a dilemma? Want to get rid of it?

The Root of All Things (Mūlapariyāya Sutta MN 1)
But he doesn’t conceive extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive as extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

There are indeed simple things that can be done. From "I am horny", simply acknowledge "there is horniness". Unhook the self. There is horniness breathing in. There is horniness breathing out. There is a fly in the room breathing in. There is a fly in the room breathing out. There is breathing in long. There is breathing in short. There is cutting vegetables breathing in long. There is cutting vegetables breathing out long. Etc.
In the modern world with dayglow sexuality in all visible forms around you on the internet or even walking down the street seeing exciting attire or cut bodies, there is a constant stream of distraction. Seeking and abiding in solitude can provide relief. You will need time to deal with each explosion of craving. Exposing yourself to constant stimulus is counterproductive. Look down. Look aside. "No, thank you."
As you relinquish the craving, note that there is also danger in relishing the fight against horniness (hence quote above). As Ajahn Chah might have said. "Can you endure?"
Note: While sleeping, if the sperm is released during a dream, no fault is being committed. Just observe and let go.

Apologies for not seeing latter part of question. Updated answer with monastic rule reference

If you are a layperson you are not expected to abandon all of these urges apart from the actual sexual misconduct, which is mainly harm to others, and depending how people view it, might or might not include masturbation (for some claim it takes two to tango). You are also not expected to abandon your wife as the object of your love and so on.
Unless you, of course, take up Eight precepts, instead of Five. You can, however, attain a decent life full of happiness, joy and bliss getting away with just this simple way. For example, I only take Eight precepts occasionally for short period of time, i.e. a month.
I would not advise to overthink that and be too harsh on yourself and just try to be reasonable about it instead. Too much restriction, too quickly, and the one might get a certain extent of back pressure which causes misery. As such, especially when suppressed, things might get worse, even out of control. In short, take it easy, there will be time and day where you have certain enough insight in Emptiness, or shall I say, things deprived of their Self essence, that you no longer perceive women in such way.
Now, there are antidotes for sexual lust in Buddhism, it might be helpful to read on overcoming Five Mental Hindrances or in Mahayana, Seven point cause and effect method, where practitioner equalizes self and the others completely, for instance, viewing other beings as objects of deepest endearment - here, all women as our mothers.
But most importantly, cultivate patience in regard to such basic and powerful innate instincts, so do not tread on yourself by mistake; this is not liberation from suffering, this is applying it.

This message does not reply directly to the question, but A few days ago I found this sutta
https://suttacentral.net/an7.50/en/sujato
Numbered Discourses 7
Aṅguttara Nikāya 7

A Great Sacrifice
Mahāyaññavagga
Sex
Methunasutta

he phrases the liberation in this term

As long as I saw that these seven sexual fetters—or even one of them—had not been given up in me, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.
But when I saw that these seven sexual fetters—every one of them—had been given up in me, I announced my supreme perfect awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.

perhaps you can strive to do the opposite of what a person ''who lives the celibate life impurely'' does

As a lay follower how to deal with uncontrollable sexual urges?

Treat it as you would with any other physical/mental phenomena: observe it with mindfulness in the present moment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are there any recollections of past lives in the more grievous realms?
While "animal" past lives seem to get a fair amount of attention I can't seem to find any about people recalling being in the hell realm or that of hungry ghosts. Aside from Mahamogallana's recollection of being Mara Dusi in MN50 and being pulled into Avici, I just can't find any past life recollections of hell or ghosts. Only descriptions of each realm as opposed to remembered experience.
Is this just something we don't yet have in English translations, even from people's personal recollections (not just the Pali canon), or is it more of something that just barely exists?

Where exactly do "animal" past lives seem to get a fair amount of attention? Thanks. Most people think they were Joan of Arc or Alexander the Great or Cleopatra in a past life.

Because the script is usually Buddha's talkings. He can say about many people when he is using his seeing ppwer. But he can talk about only one case when he is using his recollecting power.

There are only about ten Pali suttas (AN 3.15, AN 9.20, MN 50, MN 81, MN 83, MN 123, DN 17, etc) from thousands that refer to literal pasts lives. These suttas are generally in the language of later writings (such as the Apadāna, Buddhāpadāna and Jataka) and often contradict the main body of suttas (for example MN 123 contradicts MN 64). MN 50 is probably a fake sutta.
SN 22.79 explains what is meant by recollecting "past abodes" or "pubbe nivasa" (which is commonly falsely translated as "recollecting past lives"). SN 22.79 says it means recollecting when in the past the mind ignorantly attached to one or more of the five aggregates as "self".

In the story of the commentary to Dhammapada 15, the Buddha recalls somebody's past lives:

Once, in a village not far away from the Veluvana monastery, there
  lived a very cruel and hard-hearted pork-butcher, by the name of
  Cunda. Cunda was a pork-butcher for over fifty-five years; all this
  time he had not done a single meritorious deed. Before he died, he was
  in such great pain and agony that he was grunting and squealing and
  kept on moving about on his hands and knees like a pig for seven whole
  days. In fact, even before he died, he was suffering as if he were in
  Niraya (hell). On the seventh day, the pork-butcher died and was reborn in
  Avici Niraya (worst hell). Thus, the evil-doer must always suffer for the evil
  deeds done by him; he suffers in this world as well as in the next.
In this connection, the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 15: Here he grieves, hereafter he grieves; the evil-doer grieves
  in both existences. He grieves and he suffers anguish when he sees the
  depravity of his own deeds.

The Earth Store Sutra has such a recollection. There are other texts that I have read but don't remember right now.
edit: here's the link for the Sutra text: http://www.cttbusa.org/ess/earthstore1.htm
Section below:

“Shortly thereafter, a maidservant in the house bore a son who spoke
  before he was three days old. Lowering his head and weeping, he said
  to Bright Eyes, ‘The karmic conditions we create during our lives and
  deaths result in retributions that we ourselves must undergo. I am
  your mother and have been in darkness for a long time. Since you and I
  parted, I have repeatedly fallen into the great hells. Upon receiving
  the power of your blessings, I have been reborn as a servant’s child
  with a short life span. Thirteen years from now, I will fall into the
  evil paths again. Do you have some way to free me so that I can avoid
  them?’
“When Bright Eyes heard those words, she knew without a doubt that
  they were her mother’s. Choked with sobs, she said to the servant’s
  child, ‘Since you were my mother, you should know your own past
  offenses. What unwholesome karma did you create that made you fall
  into the Evil Paths?’
“The maidservant’s son answered, ‘I am undergoing retribution for two
  kinds of karma: killing and slandering. Had I not received the
  blessings you earned to rescue me from difficulty, I would not yet be
  released from that karma.’
“Bright Eyes asked, ‘What happens in the hells when beings undergo
  retribution for their offenses?
’“The maidservant’s son answered, ‘I can’t bear to speak of the ways
  in which beings suffer for their offenses. Even if I were to live for
  a hundred thousand years, I would find it hard to talk about.“

I haven't encountered this one yet but Hsuan Hua's commentary on the Surangama was invaluable. Thank you for putting this on my radar.

Venerable Hsuan Hua's commentaries are a priceless gem! I'm extremely happy that you appreciate his commentary.

It's something nearly impossible to come  to human world from the hell. Mostly nirisathwa are out of their karma in hell, they born again as upper world like animals or pretha(ghost). So its bit difficult have such memories. Other than that if someone came from hell and dont remember it, it's because of the ignorance.

https://suttacentral.net/sn56.114-116/en/sujato

Thats why i said nearly impossible, not impossible.

Read the suttra and then youll find apologues for that situation.

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


text:
"Lower rebirth" -- Are animals really "lower" than us?
I love most aspects of Buddhism but I can't agree that animals have a "lower" rebirth than us. Dogs for example sometimes have enormous love and compassion for their owners, even if they are being terribly mistreated. I am a vegan because I love animals; animals do not harm us, yet humans routinely kill animals for their own sensual pleasure. The dairy and egg industries are also very cruel -- all those male chickens being killed! And how female dairy cows are always kept pregnant or lactating through artificially insemination. It's human cruelty that keeps them in their difficult position. Saying "It's just their bad karma" is in my opinion a way of weakening your own karma.
Many animals are somewhat psychic -- they sense things that humans can't. Personally I would rather come back as an animal than a human. They seem more peaceful, humans are constantly thinking and doing and stressing about things. So can I still be a Buddhist, with these beliefs?

Hyphens join things; dashes separate things. Your post is quite hard to read because you use hyphens where you should use dashes.

Not sure abut Buddhist reasoning but in Hinduism human birth is considered to be of higher form because only in human form one can work towards his/her liberation and find God.

@TRiG You can edit someone else's post yourself, e.g. to improve formatting or spelling, especially if you don't change the meaning of what they posted.

Animals are not "psychic" in any sense of the word. Feeling things humans can't has nothing to do with being psychic, we all have different perception due to different senses, even between humans.

So can I still be a Buddhist, with these beliefs?
Yes of course.
Maybe don't over-idealise animals though, e.g. a real dog might chase and kill grass-hoppers or mice or anything else unless you stop it, fight with other dogs and so on unless it's properly trained.
So I think a human, who is kind and self-restrained and so on, is more admirable.
Instead of coming back as an animal, why not come back as a Buddhist then?
Apart from that, maybe you're doing three things:

Comparing humans to animals, and saying that humans shouldn't compare themselves favourably. That (i.e. "comparing") reminds me of this topic about pride -- and the famous "Does a dog have Buddha-nature?" koan.
Expressing an admiration or at least a sympathy towards animals
Expressing some antipathy, aversion, towards "human cruelty"

Humans seem to be predators/carnivores. What I know of ecology suggests that animal life is unfortunate even without humans in the equation: with animal predators, starvation, no medicine, unable to hear or understand the dharma, and so on -- and there's maybe only quite a limited extent to which we as a single human can fix that. But maybe, being vegan, you are doing what you can -- a proper emotion isn't hatred (towards human or animal predators) but gratitude or joy and so on (that you and other people are able to learn and conduct yourself better).

Incidentally, if you didn't know, being vegan is a point of controversy. Some Buddhists say it's important, other Buddhists say "I'm not killing animals I'm only buying dead meat at the market".
So much so that you get suggestions like, "All the vegetarian questions should get herded into a single thread", i.e. it's a fairly endless debate, difficult to say what hasn't been said before, and difficult to change another person's opinions on the subject.

Biologically, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. This is fairly readily apparent when comparing our gastrointestinal tract and teeth to those of both pure herbivores (such as equines) and pure carnivores (such as felines).

@MichaelKjörling I think that physically humans are able to do all sorts of things, and may choose not to. I meant "carnivore" loosely -- meaning "eats meat", rather than "only eats meat". Perhaps that usage, to describe a human diet, is colloquial among vegetarians (e.g. "I'm vegetarian, he's carnivore") even though inaccurate. And I remember people memorably describing themselves are "carnivore", so. Maybe "predator" isn't quite the right word either, to describe someone who goes shopping.

"I meant "carnivore" loosely -- meaning "eats meat", rather than "only eats meat"." With that clarification, I agree; and if we're going down that route, there's a reason why in some cases one specifies obligate carnivore. That said, (biologically and) physiologically, humans are able to derive significant nutrition from either meat or plant matter; which is one of the things that define an omnivore. "Predator" is a problematic term in its own right when one tries to use it non-colloquially, but let's just not go there for now.

Recognizing, with clear comprehension, that human cruelty is a degraded and demeritorious quality is a sign of tremendous insight and compassion.  Criticizing and otherwise showing antipathy and aversion to such wisdom and compassion is the opposite.

@Tharpa I'm not sure I understand your comment. I thought that the OP was (in the question) "showing aversion", and is therefore suffering. I hope it's possible to celebrate the wisdom of non-cruelty, and for there to be "joy resulting from skilful virtue", without the suffering which results from craving that rest of the world (i.e. other people) should be other than as they are.

@ChrisW "Aversion" is a common but erroneous translation of dosa.  The correct translation is "aggression".  Better to praise non-cruelty than to criticize the noble ones who speak against it.   At the very least, praise what is worthy of praise without reservation, the abandonment of cruelty, such as Lily is doing, before making subtle criticisms.
The Buddha encouraged speaking in favor of compassion and not-killing.
There are far too many people who criticize those who speak in favor of not killing, but never those who speak in defense of killing.

@Tharpa In my own experience, holding a view that "I am (or we are) vegan whereas other people are not but should be; and animals-in-general are ideal, compared with humans-in-general who are wicked" is a form or cause of suffering (and separation, maybe alienation). The non-cruel (or anti-cruel) ideal which OP describes has been dear to me for quite a long time now, but as I said I think it may be better for the OP to experience her realisation as a cause for happiness than unhappiness.

Lower is not meant as a moral judgement nor a pejorative in this case. It is meant simply as a statement of the more dire predicament most animals are in compared to most humans. There certainly exist individual dogs, cats, horses, pigs, donkeys, monkeys, deer, sheep, cows, chickens, fish, birds, reptiles that are more compassionate and exhibit virtues superior to individual humans in this very life. However, generally speaking humans have a greater capacity for understanding dharma and opportunity to practice. Most animals are subject to base instinct and spend the vast majority of their time just trying to survive. In this sense it is called the lower or less fortunate realms.

Thankyou. I agree that humans probably have more of a capacity to try to better ourselves. I actually didn't expect so many people would bother to answer my question. Yes animals do seem to be in a more dire predicament-but I think they are still going through their own emotional processes, and progressing on the path. And my own life has seen terribly dire circumstances-drugs, prostitution, and still I've managed to grow spiritually. So I believe, even those animals in the slaughter houses are growing spiritually through their pain.

Certainly even some of those animals in slaughter houses or other awful predicaments are right this moment performing virtuous actions that will no doubt ripen in the future into more beneficial circumstances for practicing dharma. Not all mind you, but some. All beings have many times over produced the seeds for suffering in the future and produced the seeds for happiness and dharma practice in the future. When and how those seeds ripen can only be resolved over the fullness of time. Reminds me of this: https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/bt1_20.htm

Would like to add a footnote about Deva ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism) ), who are supposed to be "superior" and with better karma than humans, yet said to be incapable or less capable to understand dharma due to their painless existence. Creatures in higher realms than humans do not have a "survival" to introspect, while creatures in lower realms usually do not have enough time to learn from their "survival" due to this occupying most of the time of their waking life.

Do most animals have an id and ego like humans? Important neurological question, since if they don't have ego, they are not repressed by it.

It is said that only humans have the capability of attaining enlightenment.  In this sense, it is more fortunate to be born as a human than to be born in the heavens.

@Tharpa Perhaps it's only the in highest i.e. "formless" realms that learning (and enlightenment) is impossible. There are schools of Buddhism which hope for rebirth (and then enlightenment) in a "Pure land" where learning is easier (fewer distractions than here). I think that the Pali suttas too talk of "Pure Abodes" e.g. for non-returners.

@ChrisW It is not just the formless realms where enlightenment is impossible.  The problem with all of the heavens/god realms is that there is not enough suffering, and so not enough fuel for the spiritual path.
Pure Land Buddhism is based on later teachings, not the historically-based teachings.  This group basically merges two distinct religions (replace with your preferred term) which have the same name (Buddhism), and so there are inevitable disagreements on things like that.
You are right about the pure abodes where non-returners go.  I had forgotten about that exception.

Personally I would rather come back as an animal than a human. They seem more peaceful, humans are constantly thinking and doing and stressing about things.

Be very careful what you wish for. You forgot the fact that the nice peaceful life of those animals you're familiar with are only for the few domesticated pets while the overwhelming majority of animals in the wild or the jungle live a life of constant fear and ignorance. If you were an animal in the wild, chances are pretty good that you'd be eaten alive by another bigger animal up higher in the food chain. True, some humans are very cruel, but at least there're still written rules to protect basic human right. There's no right in the animal world. There's only one rule, the jungle rule.

In addition to all the other answers I would like to add the point missed. It is that, you cannot attain Nibbana in the animal realm. It is only in human form where the conditions are right in terms of suffering and ability to learn dhamma, that you can attain Nibbana. So in that sense animals are 'lower' than us.
So, even if you wish for birth in animal realm, you will some day end up being a human, again and again you must practise dhamma to liberate yourself.
Also, don't confuse animal welfare with being a mis-anthrop.

I marked this answer down because it is contrary to sutta, namely, the sutta
links. The "animal realm" is only a mental state of people. The sutta links say animals are reborn as human by realising the four noble truths. https://suttacentral.net/sn56.114-116/en/sujato  https://suttacentral.net/sn56.105-107/en/sujato https://suttacentral.net/sn56.131/en/sujato

According to SN 56.36 (quoted below), the planes of misery (including the animal realm) are so great and vast. Only a human being who has right view and understands the Four Noble Truth would escape it.

“Bhikkhus, suppose a man were to cut up whatever grass, sticks,
  branches, and foliage there is in this Jambudipa and collect them into
  a single heap. Having done so, he would impale the large creatures in
  the ocean on the large stakes, the middle-sized creatures on the
  middle-sized stakes, and the small creatures on the small stakes.
  Still, bhikkhus, the gross creatures in the ocean would not be
  exhausted even after all the grass, sticks, branches, and foliage in
  Jambudipa had been used up and exhausted. The small creatures in the
  ocean that could not easily be impaled on stakes would be even more
  numerous than this. For what reason? Because of the minuteness of
  their bodies.
“So vast, bhikkhus, is the plane of misery. The person who is
  accomplished in view, freed from that vast plane of misery,
  understands as it really is: ‘This is suffering.’… ‘This is the way
  leading to the cessation of suffering.’
“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This
  is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the
  way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”

According to SN 56.48, a human birth is very rare and precious, and being able to listen to the Dhamma is also rare. Hence, it is our duty to contemplate on the Four Noble Truths.
The story from the commentary to Dhammapada 338-343 is also useful to illustrate that even good situations don't last forever:

On one occasion, while the Buddha was on an alms-round at Rajagaha, he
  saw a young dirty sow and smiled. When asked by the Venerable Ananda,
  the Buddha replied, "Ananda, this young sow was a hen during the time
  of Kakusandha Buddha. As she was then staying near a refectory in a
  monastery she used to hear the recitation of the sacred text and the
  discourses on the Dhamma. When she died she was reborn as a princess.
  On one occasion, while going to the latrine, the princess noticed the
  maggots and she became mindful of the loathsomeness of the body, etc.
  When she died she was reborn in the Brahma realm as a puthujjana
  brahma but later due to some evil kamma, she was reborn as a sow.
  Ananda! Look, on account of good and evil kamma there is no end of the
  round of existences."

I marked this answer down because it is contrary to sutta. SN 56.47 and other suttas say what is "rare" is the realisation of the 4 noble truths. SN 56.48 should not be used without reference to SN 56.47, which explains what is meant by "rare human birth". "Human" does not mean "people". It means living without violence and realising the noble truths; as explained in SN 56.47.

In Buddhism, the term "animal" does not mean a literal animal with four, six or eight or no legs. "Animal" means behaving without reflecting upon or without knowledge of the harmful consequences of an action. While animals certainly have very limited and programmed behaviour patterns, which make animals appear far less harmful than people; when animals need to eat or have the urge to have sex, animals proceed to hunt, kill or have sex without any regard for the other animal. Animals do not have a "conscience". Therefore, when people act with ignorance, without reflective reasoning or without a human conscience, this is taking 'birth' as 'animal'; such as in the following quotes from the Buddhist scriptures:

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
  teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect the
  world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of other
  honored persons.
Lokapala Sutta

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no
  conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome
  activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual
  devouring, the devouring of the weak.
SN 56.47

A teacher of Buddhism explains:

Now rebirth in the realm of beasts is stupidity. Whenever one is inexcusably stupid about something: stupid in not knowing that Dhamma
  and nibbāna are desirable, stupid in not daring to come into contact
  with or get close to Buddhism, stupid in believing that if one became
  interested in Dhamma or Buddhism it would make one old-fashioned and
  odd. That is how children see it, and their parents too. They try to
  pull back and move far away from Dhamma and religion. This is
  stupidity. Regardless of what sort of stupidity it is, it amounts to
  rebirth as an animal. As soon as stupidity arises and overwhelms one,
  one becomes an animal. One is a beast by spontaneous rebirth, by
  mental rebirth. This is the second Woeful State.
Buddha-Dhamma for Students

Now to the realm of beasts (tiracchana). Birth as a beast means in everyday language actual physical birth as a pig, a
  dog, or some other actual animal, Rebirth after death as some kind of
  lower animal is the everyday meaning of rebirth into the realm of the
  beasts. In Dhamma language, it has a different meaning. When one is
  stupid, just like a dumb animal, then at that moment one is born into
  the realm of beasts. It happens right here and now. One may be born as
  a beast many times over in a single day. So in Dhamma language, birth
  as a beast means stupidity.
Two Kinds of Language

I like the bit about 'Two kinds of language."

@undercat I think it's that Dhammadhatu's answers are to the effect that "past lives" and "rebirths" are not meant literally and/or are misunderstandings of the real dhamma -- i.e. I think he writes that every "past life" and every "rebirth" should be understood as some instance of egocentricity within this life -- and I think that some other users interpret "past life" and "rebirth" (and therefore also the "six realms") a bit more literally and therefore disagree with his answer[s] (see also for example here).

I do not know why because i didnt give it a down vote but if i have to guess because the answer is from Idea's of Buddhadasa.  A monk who didnt accept the idea of literal hell or heaven in the buddist thevarada doctrine.  So, to justify his personal beliefs, he apologetically explained suttas according to his beliefs such as Buddha went along with the ideas of heaven and hell at the time so people would start to pay attention to his new idea of Buddhism.  Or born in heaven, animal realm, hungry ghost etc is just a state of mind thru out the day.

No matter how you slice it, Theravada Buddhism teaches about rebirth not just about states of mind but also after break up of body.  Major issue with those who follow school of Buddhadasa is that the question of what happens when we die?  If nothing, then ultimately every one reaches Nirvana or state of non-rebirth if you wait long enough.  I’m not here to argue about what is right or wrong because those who listen to Buddhadasa may take offense.

I just to give explanation of possible cause of down vote.  Personally,  Buddhadasa shouldn’t have changed Buddhist teachings to be in line with his own beliefs but he should have started his own religion.  He should have preserved the original teachings (no matter how broken he thought it was) for next generation.

These comments are all inappropriate. This is not a debate forum. The answer was substantiated with quotes from suttas and by one of Thailands most recognised teachers. Please this comments. Thanks

@Dhammadhatu Partly because you post comments which explain why you upvote and downvote other answers (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing), I decided not to delete these comments under your answer. I was initially inclined to delete these comments to avoid arguments, but I don't want to be a instrument that silences one set of views but not another. Also I think we decided here that it's helpful to identify anything that is a controversy, if it is, i.e. "delete derogatory statements" and "outline controversy in the answer".

I can tell that as a reader I sometimes found it quite confusing when I read mutually-contradictory answers, and reassuring/informative to be told, "yes, doctrines do differ on this topic".

"n Buddhism, the term "animal" does not mean a literal animal with four, six or eight or no legs. "  Wrong.  It absolutely does mean that.  This is why the answer was downvoted, @undercat.  It was an incorrect answer.

Regarding the original question... the behavior of animals is in most cases conditioned.
An animal might behave peaceful because its body, its genetics, its upbringing essentially shape it that way, which is just another way of forcing, you could even call it total, absolute forcing since if someone beats you until you behave, at least you can perceive that, you can perceive that it did not come from you; for animals, they're forced in ways they cannot even perceive, but the result is there.
The goal is to attain conscious, intentional, and with understanding good behavior, not a forced one. And that you can only do in a human form.
The forced good behavior is a forced lesson, for those who were too stubborn to learn in any other way. But it is just a part of their path; by itself, forced good behavior can only show to that individual some possibilities, but ultimately it must again be brought to the stage where it can understand and make a conscious, informed decision about how it is going to behave.

I marked this answer up although has not used Buddhist teachings to support it.

The dairy and egg industries are also very cruel-all those male
  chickens being killed! And how female dairy cows are always kept
  pregnant or lactating through artificially insemination. It's human
  cruelty that keeps them in their difficult position.

This is part of the suffering in Animal realm. In this video you can see Hyenas eating a pregnant Zebra alive. If you are born as an animal, you could be easily subjected this kind of suffering. So be careful for what you wish for. Humans can do much worse things, but that's not what it means to have a lower or higher birth. Humans have a much higher potential for morality, concentration, wisdom, intelligence, technology, art etc.The scope of the human mind is incomparable to what an animal mind can achieve.

Personally I would rather come back as an animal than a human. They
  seem more peaceful, humans are constantly thinking and doing and
  stressing about things. So can I still be a Buddhist, with these
  beliefs?

Don't mistake being dumb and ignorant for being peaceful. Animals can never attain Jhanas or get enlightened as they lack the mental capacity to do so. Hence your beliefs are not compatible with Buddhism.

I can't agree that animals have a "lower" rebirth than us. Dogs for example sometimes have enormous love and compassion for their owners

In your statement first part is wrong and  the second part is correct..
According to the karma (good deeds or sins) a certain person does in this life his next life'll be created.. There are two parts of the places he'll be born according to this

sugathi (heavens and human birth)
dugathi

The second birth place dugathi is for ones who did bad deeds or sins in previous lives..And that devides to 4 parts,as

Naraka(This is located in the under part of world, which is same called as hell)
pretha(ghosts like creatures are included to this)
asura(A Type of creatures live in the sea)
thirisan(animals ..cats,dogs,etc..)

So you can see that animals have been born like that because of the sins they did in past lives..That is how your statements first part become wrong..
But in the next part you are correct ..Lord buddha says

Najachcha Wasalo Hothi,
Najachcha Hothi Brahmano
Kammana Wasalo Hothi,
Kammana Hothi Brahmano
That means from birth anyone doesn't become great or lower..The act he does after the birth decides whether he is great or lower..

So as you are saying there are animals who act much better that  human..That means they are greater than human..Only the race they have born is lower than human, but don't need to think about that, that is not important, Important thing is the act they do after the birth,If they behave better than human and have good qualities than human, they are greater than that lower human, That is the only thing to concern

You just get it wrong,  just think about the wild animals and Chickens, cows and pigs in farm fields. Do they have such a love and... then what about the insects and sea creatures do they have love.... other than these facts animals are lower rebirth because of they cannot handle their mind to do things and that is the main fact.
And about your personal wish to comeback here as animal
Please dont even think about it.
Just count down the number of animals in every kind and compare with number of humans in the world. Then think about it how hard it is to be a human.


text:
Is there a mistranslation of definition of ignorance?
Ignorance is the cause of suffering.
Buddha says in SN 12.2 :

“And what, bhikkhus, is ignorance? Not knowing suffering, not knowing
  the origin of suffering, not knowing the cessation of suffering, not
  knowing the way leading to the cessation of suffering. This is called
  ignorance.

Note that Buddha says "not knowing".And what is knowing ? Knowing is for example I know my name. I know my house address. I know history etc.
Now that I 'know' suffering. Now that I 'know' origin of suffering. Now that I 'know' cessation of suffering. Now that I 'know' the way leading to the cessation of suffering. My ignorance should be removed and my suffering should end. But that doesn't happen , which means there is some mistranslation from Pali. Actually I guess the wording should be :Ignorance is not knowing suffering , not knowing the origin of suffering , not knowing the cessation of suffering ,not walking(or applying or practicing) the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
My question is : Is there a mistranslation of definition of ignorance?

See also What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja (ignorance)?

There are 3 types of wisdom

suta-maya panna: wisdom gained by listening to others
cinta-maya panna: intellectual, analytical understanding
bhavana-maya panna: wisdom based on direct knowledge or meditative(Vipassana) wisdom

Knowing here means the third type. When a monk preaches or when you read a sutta on your own you usually gain type 1 and type 2. Those are not strong enough to cut off craving. You need to see the four noble truths based on direct knowledge. In other words, through Vipassana meditation.

Buddha explains Ignorance in detail(SF238) and says "not knowing Buddha, not knowing Teaching, not knowing Community"  also results in ignorance. You are saying knowing is direct knowing. Therefore you mean to say ,not knowing Buddha directly , not knowing the Teaching directly , not knowing the Sangha directly results in ignorance. But how do you know Buddha directly ? Buddha can not be known directly because we don't know whether Tathagata exists or not. How do you know Sangha directly if you are not part of it? Which means those not part of Sangha can not end suffering, which is wrong.

When you understand the four noble truth by direct knowledge, your doubts of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha disappear. Because you will know that Buddha is indeed what he claimed to be, his teaching does indeed lead enlightenment and those who practice the 8 fold path do attain enlightenment

I think you're right that the dhamma includes more than only the knowledge of suffering -- see pages 45-46 of Piya Tan's introducton to SN 56.11

Suffering -- known
Craving -- abandoned
Cessation -- realized
Path -- cultivated

But I don't think it's a mistranslation of avijja. I guess what's happening is:

You can't (easily) express the the complete dhamma in a single word or sentence, so any single word or sentence (like avijja) is incomplete (not the whole truth)
I think I read recently (though I don't remember where) that it happens in the suttas that a list (of several items) may be replaced with a single item (i.e. the first item on the list), so the first item acts as a place-holder or representative of the whole list -- so perhaps, when you read "knowledge of suffering", you're expected to also understand that to mean, "... and abandoning craving, and realizing cessation, and cultivating the path".

I think it is an excellent possible answer but it needs more support especially in the context of sutta SN 12.2. Where does the Pali Sutta or its translation in English marks the abbreviation for "... and abandoning , craving , and realizing cessation and cultivating the path"? If list of items were replaced by single word then author must have marked it somewhere in the text as it generally happens when some text is left out.

I don't mean to say that the entire list was in the text but then abbreviated. I mean that the text only contains one item, but that the audience (or reader) should understand that one item is associated with, represents, a longer list that's explained somewhere else (in a different sutta). Remember that the suttas aren't written, i.e. they're memorised oral texts -- so they can't be "marked" (except I think they have associated commentaries, though I haven't seen the commentaries and maybe the commentaries aren't translated).

You don't know suffering. If you knew suffering, there would be no suffering.
Now, you are drowning in suffering rather than knowing suffering.
If you knew suffering, you would know the tiniest thought of clinging (upadana) is suffering.

I know suffering because I have diabetes. I know suffering because some of my loved ones passed away. I will know even more suffering when I will die. However I concede that I have suffered much less than others. I have not been allowed to suffer on many occasions for that I thank people. I was once unaware of suffering but now I know. BUT I have not taken steps for the cessation of suffering. Which means knowing suffering is not sufficient. Which means knowing path to cessation of suffering is not sufficient. One must also walk the way.

Ignorance is the root cause of the suffering? Hmm...let's take a look.
Actually the Dhamma says: Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti. There are also references and translations throughout the Dhamma for attachment, desire, and delight being the root of suffering.
There is no conflict with the definition of ignorance. With ignorance dispelled, the Four Noble Truths are accepted. Now walk the path.
There might be some discussion about "depth of knowing". As practice deepens, wisdom emerges, suffering is relinquished. Indeed, we have:

Bhikkhus, true knowledge is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states

Notice that what is said is forerunner. Knowledge is insufficient. Practice is required. Knowledge alone is insufficient:
Knowing and seeing like this, my mind was freed from the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance

I meant to say that if you remove ignorance you remove suffering. In that sense ignorance is the root cause of suffering.

I've edited the answer to acknowledge that knowledge can deepen and result in less suffering. However, more is needed.

According to MN 9 (below), as long as you still have fermentation or effluents, you would still have ignorance, and vice versa (also see this question). Ignorance is a very deeply ingrained and deeply lingering fetter. You know the Four Noble Truths, but when someone threatens your life, you may get scared. So, do you really know the Four Noble Truths in such a way that it dispelled your ignorance for good?

From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....
From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

According to SN 35.153 (below), understanding by faith, by personal preference, by oral tradition, by reasoned reflection and by acceptance of a view after pondering it, is insufficient. It must be understood by "seeing it with wisdom". Only then does it obliterate ignorance permanently.

“There is a method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu—apart
  from faith … apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it—can
  declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth … there is no more
  for this state of being.’ And what is that method of exposition? Here,
  bhikkhus, having seen a form with the eye (and same applies to sound
  and ear), if there is lust, hatred, or delusion internally, a bhikkhu
  understands: ‘There is lust, hatred, or delusion internally’; or, if
  there is no lust, hatred, or delusion internally, he understands:
  ‘There is no lust, hatred, or delusion internally.’ Since this is so,
  are these things to be understood by faith, or by personal preference,
  or by oral tradition, or by reasoned reflection, or by acceptance of a
  view after pondering it?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Aren’t these things to be understood by seeing them with wisdom?”
“Yes, venerable sir.”

So, how does one "see it with wisdom"?
The answer comes in SN 22.98 (below), where Ven. Khemaka briefly describes the technique of Vipassana, as the method to be used to see with wisdom, in order to uproot the deep fetters of conceit and ignorance.

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
  the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
  clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
  desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
  the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
  clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
  disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
  fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
  disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
  these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
  'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

The Buddha also confirms in SN 22.47 that when ignorance is fully overcome, the "I am" conceit would be fully obliterated:

“The five faculties remain right there, bhikkhus, but in regard to
  them the instructed noble disciple abandons ignorance and arouses true
  knowledge. With the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true
  knowledge, ‘I am’ does not occur to him; ‘I am this’ does not occur to
  him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and
  ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be
  nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor
  nonpercipient’—these do not occur to him.”

I don't think that we need to take fermentations or effluents into consideration because if we can uproot any single cause in the dependent origination the whole chain ceases to exists as cessation of ignorance leads to cessation of suffering. (if we can cause cessation of feeling then it will lead to cessation of suffering or if we can cause cessation of craving then also it will lead to cessation of suffering)My point was that knowing the 8 fold path is not sufficient for the removal of ignorance , one must walk over it. This is not obvious in the definition of ignorance as given in SN 12.2.


text:
Does the Dhamma suggest to change external unfavourable conditions
In modern society most politicians and banks are corrupt and only care to gain more money & power. They do not care about the welfare of the citizens. What would the dhammic response be? Activism and Dhamma should be incorporated or not or partially?

See also Did the Buddha try to effect social change?

The Buddha did not intend monks to participate in politics, as seen in DN 2:

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these —
  talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and
  battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents;
  relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women
  and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead;
  tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future],
  the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things
  exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as
  these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

However, the Buddha did intend for lay people to participate in constructive nation building, in accordance with the Dhamma in DN 16:

At that time the Venerable Ananda was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable
  Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent
  gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"
"I have heard, Lord, that this is so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse
  peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees
  nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their
  ancient constitutions?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
  esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to
  listen to them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting
  women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
  esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the
  city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due
  offerings as given and made to them formerly?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that
  they do not deprive them of their offerings."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."

Lord buddha didn't refuse economical and physical development of a person while he practices dhamma..By reading Kutadanta Sutta and  Vyagghapajja Suttayou can get a comprehension on these things..
And otherwise for politicians can refer saptha aparihai dharma   and dasa raja dharma,in order to understand their duty


text:
As Buddhists, what do you make out of the tragedy of Tibet?
I finished watching two movies on the life of H.H the Dalai Lama (Kundun and Seven years in Tibet) which also highlight the tragedy of Tibet. Historically Tibet can be said as the only country which has dedicated itself to the attainment of Nibbana (take this with a pinch of salt). A huge amount of cultural heritage and Buddhist documents must have been lost during the cultural revolution.
So what do you make out of the tragedy of Tibet?
Do we learn any lessons about Karma?
Do you think that for protection of Dhamma Tibet should have indulged in dealing with arms?
If you are a Vajrayana, do you care for Liberation of Tibet?
P.S: Not being judgemental towards the Chinese.

Should we close this as 100% opinion-based?

Yes, it is kind of, but can it not be given the leverage of being a question of, 'doing a meaningful contribution towards the bigger understanding of Buddhist life'.

Actually you know, I can seperate those questions and make it appear like they will have objective answers. But in current form it make better sense, so I would suggest to not close it. But if that might affect the BU.stack its your call.

@AndreiVolkov I think it's a polling question again, i.e. it's asking about/for the opinion of every user on a (random) topic. Just because it's asked here doesn't automatically make it a question about Buddhism. And even just because it's asked about a Buddhist country doesn't make it a question about Buddhism or about Buddhist culture. It's nearly on-topic but it should concentrate more on being a specific question. Also asking "lessons learned about kamma" is more or less a duplicate of the earlier question about kamma and Jews in the Holocaust isn't it: so maybe not that question again.

We've had questions about arms before, so I don't know what good asking about arms in Tibet might be. And asking "do you care?" is IMO a weak (open-ended) question, like "I can't think of a good question to ask, but say whatever you think is important about it." Maybe it would be better for a discussion site (elsewhere) than for Q+A (here). Anyway I closed another topic recently for being a polling question, I think I should do the same for this one.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's a polling question. You could also use the chat room for this topic if you want to.

@ChrisW I do get your point, and not arguing to re-open it, but you know what, sometimes when the context changes, the way we look at our understanding of something also changes. For an e.g. when the gravity is pondered for heavenly objects we use space-time curve to solve the equations rather than Newton's laws. As with the changing context, we need better understanding. I know the Karma deal, but with Tibet, it was something to be rethought as it let me wonder is Aniccaa a higher law than Karma, and so on and so forth...

Tibet was invaded 65 years ago, few of us experienced "the context changing". If you'd like to reopen maybe ask a more specific question. You might see also e.g. Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist, e.g. about kamma.

Another thing I mistrust about this question as-is is that someone is likely to answer it with (not an anti-Chinese but) an anti-Tibetan and anti-Dalai Lama answer, that consists of and includes statements about politics and history. But, the politics and history of Tibet and His Holiness' role in that, are topics which IMO the users of site aren't experts at assessing and putting into context, so may be more on topic on the History.SE or Politics.SE or Skeptics.SE sites -- so instead I'd rather you try to keep the questions more specifically about Buddhism and/or personal practice and so on.

I am sorry @ChrisW, didn't mean to be passive-aggressive. I did get the answer in the holocaust link. :)

I believe this question has been asked 2500 years ago. Please see Mahāparinibbānasutta DN16:

I will wipe out these Vajjis, so mighty and powerful! I will destroy them, and lay ruin and devastation upon them!


text:
Why are all the Buddhas born in Indian subcontinent only?
From this list of previous Buddhas it looks like all were Indians.( I mean from their names).
Ancient Greece or Egypt were also developed enough to have understood the Dhamma.
We can consider Socretes and Moses from that part, but India(Nepal) was chosen for the Buddha.
What's the reason?

There is no reason. Instead, if we actually use "reason" or "intelligence" ("yoniso manasikara"), we will conclude this is totally improbable, which is why the teachings about past Buddhas found in the DN are probably fake propaganda composed after the Buddha when Ashoka and the Buddhist clergy were undermining Brahmanism/Hindism. Theravada teaches to wisely reflect on any teaching heard or read. Theravada Buddhism is not about blind faith in every sutta but the verification of a sutta via meditative insight. To believe Buddhas only arise in India is like believing the Messiah only comes to the Chosen People (Jews) in Israel. Its non-sense religious political propaganda.

From your answers, you seem to always have an opinion about the authenticity of account and Theravada interpretation. Where can I get to read this?

Sorry. All I posted was my personal opinion (apart from saying all sutta must be reflected on with wisdom, which the suttas teach).

Just as fishes are found in water and monkeys are found on trees. Different races are found in different regions of the world. They differ in their skin color, language , necessities , dominating elements and philosophies. Out of this segregated reality Jesus , Ram , Buddhas are born. Nothing happens without reason. Jesus manifested because of the conditions around him. Ram or Krishna manifested because of the conditions around them. Similarly Buddha manifested because of the conditions around him. It is no surprise that Buddha came from Indian subcontinent because he came up with a theory of Anatta which was opposite to what was preached by Hindus. That insight required conditions created by Hindus. Similarly we can say Jesus came up his theory to resolve the issues faced by middle east people. Ram and Krishna also had a purpose which was relevant to their surroundings. No one was taught to be Buddha or Ram or Jesus, they were the product of Life and its environment. There should be no shame in saying that Indian subcontinent has been a place from where great sages and Buddhas came into being. If Buddha arises again then most probably he will arise in the East because East has the conditions for his growth.

We have to keep in mind the fact that general knowledge and education level of folks 2500 years ago was way different from modern time people. It was an age without internet and without any effective communication means. Geography wasn't a standardized formal academic discipline in schools, and majority of the population were un-educated folks. To them the concepts of Ancient Greece, Egypt, China, their cultures and languages were virtually non-existent. So if there was an ancient Buddha in China with a name "Chong", or Europe with a name "Kon", or Africa with a name "!Non", it would be much easier to be rendered as "John" by an American Buddha when He teaches His disciples in a subsequent period. The Dhamma would be much easier propagated to everyone once its ideas, concepts, and names were translated to the dialect local people back then could understand.

You surmised that the previous Buddhas were all born in the Indian subcontinent, simply because they had names that sounded Indian.
If you look at the excerpt from an academic paper below, certain Greek and Egyptian kings had Indian-sounding names in Emperor Ashoka's edicts, but this did not mean that they were Indian. Turamaya was Ptolemy, Maka or Maga was Magas, Alikasudara or Alikyasudala was Alexander. In fact, Greece was known as Yavana in Sanskrit (from Ionia). So, just because previous Buddhas had Indian-sounding names, it does not mean that they were Indian or that they resided in the Indian subcontinent. It only shows that they had Prakritized or Sanskritized names.
From the paper entitled "Antiochus, King of the Yavanas" by Jarl Charpentier :

As concerns  Turamaya  there  can  happily  be no
  doubt. That it denotes one of the Ptolemies has been
  taken for granted ever since the days of Prinsep; and
  it seems  quite  obvious  that  none  but Ptolemy  II
  Philadelphus, whose long reign  covered  nearly  four
  decenniums   (285-247  B.C.) ,  would  fit  into  the
  chronology  of Asoka's  reign."  As for Maka  or Maga
  there existed, no doubt, more than one princeling  of
  the name of Magas; but there can be little doubt that
  we hare to do here with  that Magas  of Cyrene  whose
  regnal years fall between  c.  300-250  B.C.  Already
  Buhler(3) remarked that Amtekina (G., K.) or Amtikini
  (Sh.) would  rather  render  a Greek  Avtigenes  than
  Avtigenes. However, although we know of at least
  one Antigenes," he, for obvious  reasons, cannot come
  in here.  The old Antigonos who met his fate at Ipsus
  (301 B.C.) seems to be Out of the question;  and thus
  there  remains  only his grandson, surnamed  from the
  place  of his  birth  Gonatas, whose  reign  extended
  between  276 and 239  B.C.  Finally, Alikasudara  (or
  Alikyasudala, K.) has long been taken to be Alexander
  of  Epirus(5)  who  was  the   son  of  Pyrrhus   and
  Antigone.

That is an interesting take on the subject...it would have been so much mysterious if any of the dhamma sutra...e.g. the heart sutra would have found in the sarcophagus... the world would have become so much mystery to live in...

This can be an entirely different question altogether, but given what you say, will you call Socrates or Jesus as enlightened masters trying to explain the Dhamma, to the respective audience in respective culture and language...in that case case it would nullify the argument that Buddhas will only be born in India.

The Buddhavaṁsa gives the birthplaces too. I'd guess these were known (places) and in India.

@FriedrickNietzsche Jesus and Socrates cannot be Buddhas. The Buddhas have to teach the Four Noble Truths, the three marks of existence (including anatta), the Eightfold Noble Path and dependent origination.

It's Universal law. Which we cannot simply understand why.

Please add a reference to that statement.

I cannot remember exactly which sutta it is, if im not mistaken in that sutta, says there are some inccidents related to buddhas life, will be confusing to ordinary people. And its all depends on the way we looking at it. If we look it through scientific way those will be just rumor, else we look it with faith on buddhas teaching it'll not be problem at all.

Thanks. I will try to look for it as well.

Yes all buddhas were from india, that's a certain of world..In future also  buddhas'll be born only in india..When a Bodhisathwa(buddha before enlightenment)looking for feasibility to be born, country and place are among major five factors, and always the country selected was india..
With the geographical positioning of india ,it has a special energy that is needed to make a buddha..As you mentioned in the same time greece,egypt...those countries also were developed but they didn't have that geographical factor which india had..And also otherwise buddha needed wise people who could understand the buddha serments, For that they needed to had spiritual and mental development, I think those western countries only had physical development more than mental development in that time..So buddha had to choose india to plant the seed of buddhism


text:
Ignorance and the root of suffering?
Searching the Pali Canon for the "root of suffering", we find the direct  definition only occurs in a few suttas:

delight is the root of suffering (MN1)
attachment is the root of suffering (MN105, MN66)
desire is the root of suffering ([MN42.11])
what is greed? ... that which is...root of suffering (Vb17)

We also have that ignorance is simply one product of dependent origination (SN 22.81):

And that craving, that feeling, that contact, and that ignorance are also impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated.

Ignorance does indeed result in suffering, but to claim it as the root of suffering feels a bit misleading.
Can one assert “ignorance is the root of suffering?”
Can one assert “ignorance is NOT the root of suffering?”
In your answers, kindly include actual sutta references, preferably from the Pali Canon. This is necessary to avoid arguing about personal interpretation since supported translations are provided by ordained and well-respected monks. As a Sangha, we have to respect and uphold the Dhamma.

I added the following to my answer: Therefore, the "root" or "base" of suffering is craving & delight. The "trunk" of suffering is "becoming & ego-birth". The "branches & leaves" of suffering are "ego-aging-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair". All of these things themselves are "suffering".

@Dhammadhatu nice! Researching this question has taught me the utility of  the plant metaphor. It has also taught me that such meaning is generally contextual. For example, in some suttas ignorance is the plant to be uprooted (MN148), in others it is the obscuring earth that feeds the plants of unskillful qualities (SN20.1). For the context of  "root of suffering", I do still prefer to restrict myself to what is actually written in the suttas. Thank you for your research and guidance.

Thanks to SuttaCentral and all of the other answers here, I would propose the following:
A root can be seen. Ignorance is blindness. From Root of Existence, in our practice we should perceive the root of suffering as craving, delight, relishing and attachment. For this reason, saying that "ignorance is the root of suffering" is misleading in the context of MN1 because one cannot see one's own ignorance. Although the suttas do not themselves declare ignorance as the root of suffering, the commentaries do (Buddhaghosa, Bodhi)
From Dependent Origination we have "Ignorance is the condition for...old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress". I.e., suffering originates in ignorance. For this reason it is misleading to say that "ignorance is not the root of suffering". Specifically:

When ignorance fades away...this entire mass of suffering ceases

Delight is the root of suffering. Ignorance planted the seed. Look for the root and do not plant the wrong seed.
Regarding the original question on ignorance and is/is-not the root of suffering:
The phrase root of suffering is a key phrase in Buddhism often associated by all directly with the words of the Buddha. For me to utter either of those phrases would therefore be an indulged conceit of representing myself as The Blessed One.
However, if any Buddha past or present should utter these phrases, that would be their prerogative. I do not consider it mine.
The issue here is not only about right view. Dependent origination is understood as such. The issue here is also right speech. Literally: Can one assert ...(a phrase)...
The issue of right speech and our diligence in quoting the Buddha is that in our careless discussion:

the discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—will disappear.

Very well reasoned! Excellent. I have never heard this point of view before. A root can be seen. Ignorance is blindness. From Root of Existence, in our practice we should perceive the root of suffering as craving, delight, relishing and attachment. For this reason, saying that “ignorance is the root of suffering” is misleading because one cannot see one’s own ignorance. As for Sutta Central, I was hoping Ajahn Sujato would contribute. Your question is very subtle even though I think you may have answered it yourself. Brilliant.

However, I disagree with the comment by another that said: "You must lose delight before you lose ignorance and that is a noble/universal truth across the board according to the suttas". For example, I delight in a certain person as my lover. But then I learn that person is having sexual affairs. It is my loss of ignorance that leads to my loss of delight in that person as my lover. Similarly, knowing the Three Characteristics; that conditioned things are impermanent, unsatisfying (cannot bring true happiness) and not-self; results in the eradication of delight. Ending ignorance ends delight.

Contrary to what the other person wrote; ending ignorance is not dependent upon the ending of delight. It is the opposite. The ending of delight is dependent upon the ending of ignorance. That is why Right View is the "forerunner" or "leader" of the Path (MN 117).

I agree about the ending of delight and ignorance. I have amended answer to quote SN12.1.

Where does the phrase "Ignorance was the seed etc." come from?

I am a gardener and therefore do not conflate root and seed. The Buddha did not say seed of ignorance, so that is just me yapping. However: https://www.google.com/search?q=seed+of+ignorance&rlz=1CAZZAF_enUS779US779&oq=seed+of+ignorance&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.4284j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  However the Buddha DOES discuss seeds at length in the context of kamma and bad/good seeds.

Let me introduce you to the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.
But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.
So, the root of the monkey's misery is craving, and not ignorance, as stated in SN 22.31:

“And what, bhikkhus, is misery? Form is misery; feeling is misery;
  perception is misery; volitional formations are misery; consciousness
  is misery. This is called misery.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the root of misery? It is this craving that
  leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking
  delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures,
  craving for existence, craving for extermination. This is called the
  root of misery.”

But to uproot craving, the monkey must first overcome his ignorance.
If the monkey had ignorance of the working of the trap, but if he had no craving, he would not get stuck in the trap. If the monkey had craving but did not have ignorance, he could still neglect his knowledge and get caught in the trap, due to greed and clinging. Hence, craving is the root of suffering, and not ignorance.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

Oh this made me laugh. Thank you for the reminder of the coconut. Beautiful!  This is also what I see. Upon reflection, I note that this question deals both with right speech and right view.

Great answer. :-)

It is true that craving, feeling, contact, and ignorance are impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated.
Coming together of Ignorance and Contact gives rise to Craving which in turn gives rise to Suffering. If we abandon Ignorance or Contact or Craving or Feeling completely, the Suffering will cease. Therefore in a sense all of the above factors of dependent origination can be called the root of suffering.

If we abandon Ignorance and wisdom emerges, we may be temporarily free of suffering, but the world changes and presents new stuff that is unknown to us (kamma), stuff to which we might cling to or find delight in. The "root of suffering" is quite special and should not be lightly used.

If you abandon ignorance you will not be temporarily free of suffering , you will be permanently free of suffering. Question is how do you abandon ignorance ?

The question requires understanding exactly what the word "mūla" ("root") is meant to mean in terms of its general usage (which I cannot answer at this current time and requires a contextual analysis of the texts). However, given "attachment" actually is suffering itself, the word "root" may not mean a "preceding cause" ("hetu") but be something much closer to the subject/thing.

Delight in feelings is attachment - MN 38
In short, suffering is the five aggregates attached to - SN 56.11
Conceiving 'self' is an arrow, disease, cancer - MN 140
Resolved on 'my self'... is suffering arising... SN 12.15
View of 'a being'... is suffering arising... SN 5.10

In SN 42.11, 'root' is used as a preceding cause; although 'chando' is not as exact as 'tanha':

For desire is the root of suffering. Chando hi mūlaṃ dukkhassa.

In MN 22, something that is essentially 'causeless', namely, ignorance, is cut off at its root:

Herein the monk has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root..
Abandoned the round of re-births, leading to renewed existence; he has cut it off at the root...
Abandoned craving, has cut it off at the root...
Abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root...
Abandoned the conceit of self, has cut it off at the root...

The contextual analysis becomes more clear with SN 15.9, which says:

Suppose a stick was tossed up in the air. Sometimes it’d fall on its bottom, sometimes the middle, and sometimes the top.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, daṇḍo uparivehāsaṃ khitto sakimpi mūlena nipatati, sakimpi majjhena nipatati, sakimpi antena nipatati;

Therefore, as I suspected, the word "mūla" might be closer to the subject/thing itself than being a distant preceding cause. In SN 15.9, it is the "bottom/base" of a stick (rather than a more distant cause, such as tree, tool or carpenter that made the stick). This appears apparent in SN 4.24 which says:

“Having dug up entirely the root of sorrow, Guiltless, I meditate free from sorrow. Having cut off all greedy urge for existence, I
  meditate taintless, O kinsman of the negligent!”

Again, Snp 4.14 is about a very close cause rather than a distant cause:

One should completely extract the root of proliferation and reckoning— The notion, “I am the thinker”.

AN 10.58 says:

Wholesome zeal (chanda) is the root of all dhamma practise.

This says without zeal (chanda), dhamma practises will be ineffective, similar to how a car cannot drive without fuel.
I think 'mūla' is a characteristic or cause of a thing that is very closely tied to the thing. Therefore, 'ignorance' is probably too distant a cause to be the 'mūla' of suffering because what makes suffering burn is the craving, attachment & egoism.
Therefore, the "root" or "base" of suffering is craving & delight. The "trunk" of suffering is "becoming & ego-birth". The "branches & leaves" of suffering are "ego-aging-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair".

"Ignorance" is the first cause/leader of all unskilful qualities, which includes attachment.

Avijjā, bhikkhave, pubbaṅgamā akusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ samāpattiyā..
Monks, ignorance is the leader/foreunner in the attainment of unskillful qualities...
SN 45.1

Purimā, bhikkhave, koṭi na paññāyati avijjāya: ‘ito pubbe avijjā nāhosi, atha pacchā samabhavī’ti
Bhikkhus, this is said: ‘A first point of ignorance, bhikkhus, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it came into being.’
AN 10.61

Please do not attach any dictionary definitions to this answer. Thanks

Thank you for the deep research. Given the Pali variants on "root of suffering", I've simply deferred to SuttaCentral and searched for "root of suffering" (with quotes) to find 13 candidates of which only a few directly define root of suffering.  SN45.1 is interesting because it directs that relinquishing ignorance to let true wisdom arise is the path out of suffering, but it doesn't actually imply that ignorance itself is the root of suffering. Instead, we have delight/craving/attachment/desire declared as the root of suffering in multiple suttas. Wisdom is the knife we use to cut the root.

(continued) I'd venture that the use of mula as "bottom" is very close to "root" in that there is nothing further below. This implies that we need look no further than craving, desire, delight as the root of suffering. This awareness gives us a target for our wisdom to cut.

Glad to read you researching however I must disagree with your conclusion because the Dhamma says to look further because the most efficient way of cutting the root is by removing ignorance. As suggested, I think the word "root" must be deeply examined (which I have not done in great detail) rather than taken literally in English. It is important to abandon focus on English translations and dictionary definitions and examine words in the contextual usage in passages. You might want to ask a question about it at Sutta Central to Ajahn Sujato to find if he can help us find something compelling

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/ Discuss & Discover

I scored this answer up although I did not read a word of it. 10 points for effort !

I'm not sure that it's "essentially causeless" -- maybe its cause is "unwise attention". And MN 22 includes "cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, exterminated it" so maybe quite a straightforward metaphor: i.e. it's not exactly "preceding cause" but is "thing on which another thing grows" or "thing which supports and nourishes another thing".

Ignorance has "ahara: ("food") as "supporting condition" ("paccaya") but it does not have a "cause" ("hetu"), Please refer to AN 10.61. As MN 9 says, the condition (payacca) of ignorance is ignorance itself. Ignorance does not have a preceding cause ("hetu"). This is the most basic understanding, which is why ignorance is the 1st cause in Dependent Origination. Once you take refuge in Buddhaghosa, you embark on the wrong path.

In AN 3.69 (Akusalamūlasutta) it's defined as one of the three "unskillful roots".
And I think that earns it its place at the centre of the wheel of life -- maybe not in Theravada though:

The Theravada-tradition does not have a graphical representation of the round of rebirths, but cakra-symbolism is an elementary component of Buddhism, and Buddhaghosa's Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga) contains such imagery:

It is the beginningless round of rebirths that is called the 'Wheel of the round of rebirths' (saṃsāracakka). Ignorance (avijjā) is its hub (or nave) because it is its root. Ageing-and-death (jarā-maraṇa) is its rim (or felly) because it terminates it. The remaining ten links (of the Dependent Origination) are its spokes (i.e. karma formations [saṅkhāra] up to process of becoming [bhava]).

That quote is on/from page 188-189 of The Path of Purification:

In context, I guess that Buddhaghosa derives that from its position as the first of the 12 nidanas.

There's also doctrine in the Abhidhamma, for example from of A Comperehensive Manual of Abhidhamma edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

(1) Delusion (moha): Moha, “delusion,” is a synonym for avijjā, “ignorance.”
  Its characteristic is mental blindness or unknowing (aññāṇa). Its function is nonpenetration,
  or concealment, of the real nature of the object. It is manifested as the
  absence of right understanding or as mental darkness. Its proximate cause is unwise
  attention (ayoniso manasikāra). It should be seen as the root of all that is unwholesome.

Or page 31 of A Manual of Abhidhamma by Narada Maha Thera:

Three Roots (Mula)
Lobha, dosa, and moha are the three roots of evil. Their
  opposites are the roots of good.
Lobha, from √ lubh, to cling, or attach itself, may
  be rendered by ‘attachment’ or ‘clinging’. Some scholars
  prefer ‘greed’. Craving is also used as an equivalent of
  lobha.
In the case of a desirable object of sense, there arises,
  as a rule, clinging or attachment. In the case of an undesirable
  object, ordinarily there is aversion.
In Pàli such aversion is termed dosa or pañigha. Dosa
  is derived from √ dus, to be displeased. Pañigha is
  derived from ‘pañi’, against, and √ ‘gha’ (han), to strike,
  to contact. Illwill, hatred are also suggested as equivalents
  of ‘pañigha’.
Moha is derived from √ muh, to delude. It is delusion,
  stupidity, bewilderment. It is ‘moha’ that clouds an
  object and blinds the mind. Sometimes ‘moha’ is rendered
  by ignorance.
According to the Abhidhamma, moha is common to all
  evil. Lobha and dosa do not arise alone, but always in combination
  with moha. Moha, on the other hand, does arise
  singly—hence the designation ‘momåha’, intense delusion.
Diametrically opposed to the above three roots are
  the roots of Kusala. They not only indicate the absence of
  certain evil conditions, but also signify the presence of certain
  positive good conditions. Alobha does not merely
  mean non-attachment, but also generosity. Adosa does not
  merely mean non-anger or non-hatred, but also goodwill,
  or benevolence, or loving-kindness (mettà). Amoha does
  not merely mean non-delusion, but also wisdom or knowledge
  (nana or pannà).

Thank you so much for this very extended research. I have taken the Visuddhimagga quote and amended my answer as a contextual caution regarding MN1 rather than a more general caution.

FWIW I thought that ignorance is called "the root" because it's the root of craving (and aversion) -- so I guess it's like the grandfather of suffering, not the direct cause of suffering.

I marked this answer down because "ignorance " is not mentioned in AN 3.69. "Moho" or "moha" ("delusion") is not necessarily synonymous with ignorance. "Ignorance" is a inherent permanent "blindness" (before sense contact) where as "moha" can be a defilement, such as confusion, arising after sense contact. Also, if I could mark this answer down twice, i would, for it quoting the confusions of Buddhaghosa, who did not understand Dependent Origination.

@Dhammadhatu moha too is sometimes translated as "ignorance", with avijjā as more-or-less a synonym.

No. Its not necessarily synonymous. As I posted, they would arise at different stages of Dependent Origination. Ignorance is the underlying tendency and moha arises after sense contact. If someone performs an illogical action and the thought arises: "I don't understand this ; I am confused", this is moho manifesting after sense contact as a form of craving, namely, wanting to understand. Or if I act selfishly towards another person, this is moha because the sense object already is the object of consciousness.

@OyaMistAeroponics I think it's also in the Abhidhamma -- I edited the answer slightly.

@ChrisW thank you. I have edited my answer to reference Bodhi.

@OyaMistAeroponics And again. I think that's not just in the commentaries but (according to what I quoted) in the Abhidhamma itself: "According to the Abhidhamma, moha is common to all evil."

@ChrisW a seed and a root are common to all plants. If desire is the root of suffering, we can say that ignorance was the seed. Which came first? Which do we uproot? (answer edited. thank you)

@OyaMistAeroponics "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" Dhammadhatu is distinguishing between a cause, a condition, and a root (and modern logical distinguishes different kinds of cause, e.g. "proximate or ultimate") -- but I'm not sure how/whether that's practical. I think that the Buddhist doctrine of "dependent arising" isn't exactly "cause and effect" but just "you don't get a chicken without an egg, and you don't get an egg without a chicken." Similarly there's the Abhidhamma claiming than an evil or unskillful quality doesn't arise except with a bit of ignorance (or delusion) too.

And the suttas don't claim that ignorance is "unconditioned", though I'n not sure whether they say what causes it. And I think that it (and other 'defilements') can be uprooted, e.g. (according to MN 22) by "proper attention".

SN 12.20 -- "Ignorance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation"

@ChrisW yes, I´m aware of SN12.20. It actually felt a bit odd for me to write seed of ignorance in my own answer since I could not find any sutta reference. The term comes from other contexts. However using that term allowed me to point out that root is preceded by many things, so arguments about which was first are as you say, circular.(NOTE: I did upvote your answer. I am not the downvoter)

Speaking of "circular" I think that some people say death (i.e. the 12th nidana) conditions ignorance (i.e. the 1st). Again I'm not sure that's practical (maybe that's like just trying to come up with a neat theory with no loose ends). Also, re. "which was the first", you know SN 15.3 -- "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."

But I think we are supposed to be interested in conditions for cessation.

According to his comment above the downvote was Dhammadhatu's.

Note I think I understand the confusion. THe question is actually about right speech, not right view. ANswer edited.