text:
The concept of being the part of the universe
Very respectfully,i am very much new to this community but have always been interested in Buddhism. I know some people who are Buddhist and they often talk about being one with the universe or being the part of it, literally. How does that work? I mean are we born from universe and when we say the word "universe", what exactly do we mean?

The 'tags' imply you'd like answers written from the perspective of "Tibetan Buddhism" and/or "New age Buddhism" -- but excluding other forms/schools/traditions of Buddhism, like Theravada, or Zen -- is that so?

No. Sorry i am just new to the forum and would appreciate  help with tags.

No problem. Just, we usually use any of the various school-specific tags ('theravada', 'mahayana', etc.) as a signal that we're looking for answers from the perspective of a specific school or tradition. I don't really know what tag is appropriate for this question, but i'll leave these comments here as a signal that answers are welcome from any tradition.

Thank you. For guiding and not down-voting.

It depends on how the person thinks, but being one with the universe is just that your aren't a separate being in this world, you exist because of the water, sun, people,.. around you. So you are literally a part of it. To be one with it, I guess is recognizing that there is no separate self.

"I mean are we born from universe and when we say the word "universe", what exactly do we mean?
The idea (or what is discovered) is that we are in a sense born from the universe (in a way this is obvious) but it may be better to say we are the universe. It could even be said we are not born at all. Even the statement 'we are' would be denied.
If 'Universe' means 'all that exists' then this is not a Buddhist meaning of the word since it would leave out the source of existence. This source would real where all else would be created thus not metaphysically or independently real. The Buddhist 'universe' is bigger than the universe of physics since it includes the totality of Reality and Appearance or both of Nagarjuna's 'two worlds', but also smaller since space-time and its contents would be reducible.
Hence the Buddhist Universe is a fundamental concept where the scientific concept is non-reductive. This would be why Buddhism has a coherent metaphysic while physics cannot find one. How we define 'universe' is therefore important. If we follow the scientists and say it is 'all that exists' we will have no hope of a fundamental world-theory.

I don't understand what is gained by stating physics doesn't have coherent metaphysics. Of course it doesn't. Physics is a science, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Science uses observation, experimentation and theorizing to discover the true nature of reality, accepting what works without preference and throwing out what doesn't without attachment. It does so by removing the subjective from the observation, as your senses may deceive or only perceive part of the full spectrum. Buddhism considered as a skillful method is much closer to the scientific principle than it is to metaphysics.

"If 'Universe' means 'all that exists' then this is not a Buddhist meaning of the word since it would leave out the source of existence." - This is an excellent observation. Form can only exist through no form. It's easy to observe this by noticing that there is space (or distance) and time between forms of the universe. When this is seen as an ultimate truth perception itself becomes superfluous and the 'one' universe becomes neither itself nor the space that defines it.

@Codosaur - Yes, science can function without a metaphysics, but this just proves that science does not study Reality. It studies phenomena that it takes to be real and cannot explain them. I'd agree that Buddhism is a science of mind, as HHDL has called it, but it is also a sound metaphysical doctrine, Metaphysics also proceeds 'without preference and throwing out all that doesn't work without attachment'.  .

@PeterJ, the Buddha utterly rejected his teaching to be seen as a doctrine in the Kalama Sutra. It is first and foremost a method. And how does not using metaphysics "prove" science does not study reality?

@Codosaur - Quite right. The Buddha left it to Nagarjuna to explain his metaphysics. As for the 'natural' sciences they take phenomena to be real and do not enquire further so end up studying only what Nagarjuna proves does not really exist. This is its methodology and it is effective up to a point. Russell's 'rational' philosophy rejects Nagarjuna and all other views are logically indefensible and so we see total confusion in Western scholastic metaphysics. .   .

@PeterJ, to state the Buddha "left it to Nagarjuna" implies there was intent from Gautama's side regarding this. From a scientific point of view, we can safely say this was certainly not the case. Also, it it a grave misconception to state science takes phenomena to be real at face value. And philosophy is not science, so if a philosopher rejects something it has no bearing on science.

@Codosaur. Just being light-hearted. But then, according to some accounts Nagarjuna's work was predicted in the Buddha's time as it was understood that there was work to be done on philosophical foundations . And some people consider metaphysics to be a science of logic, including me and Hegel.

@Codosaur PS - By coincidence I was reading Gymptso's commentary on 'Fundamental Wisdom' last night and he mentions that the prediction of the coming of a great master who would explain the philosophical basis of his teachings was made by the Buddha himself. .

@PeterJ yes we find stories like that in most organized religions, but the work was written 800 years after the Buddha's time, and the commentaries even later. To my knowledge no reference of this prediction is found in the original canon, though we find other predictions in there: Downfall of the Dharma, The Role of Women, Warnings to the Sangha of practitioners, Destruction of the Teachings. In historical criticism, this would be considered construed post-factum. Nagarjuna's work stands fine by itself, a prediction does not add or subtract to its value.

@Codosaur - Yes. All true. Still, clearly someone needed to do the work and so the prediction was a pretty safe one,

You may in fact be asking about "identity view", which is a key concept in the suttas:

For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them? --MN64

With identity view (i.e., "I am") comes a host of problems. Indeed, you might say that we get a "universe of suffering". MN64 discusses identity view at length. For example, with the notion of self and a corresponding need to perpetuate self (e.g., "I like chocolate") comes suffering (e.g., "GIVE ME CHOCOLATE NOW!").
Without identity view there is no longer a gap between a self and the universe. The self is found to be the gap, the hiccup, the breach in existence. Without identity view there is equanimity, which is often what folks generally mean when they say "one with the universe."

‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, cessation, extinguishment.

There still is chocolate. But the happiness of eating chocolate is no longer a mandate of craving. If you eat the last chocolate, fine. The last chocolate is eaten.

I don't think I'd put it like that ("being one with the universe") but here's my guess as to what that may mean:

Buddhism is more about mind than about matter. It's not about Physics (atoms and stars and so on).
Buddhism nevertheless claims to describe various laws of nature (see e.g. here), and by understanding these 'laws' (which describe how the world is) we can better attain peace, even lasting peace, liberation.
A lot of Buddhism is to do with ethics (see also e.g. here or here), especially to begin with -- of which an example are the five precepts (and I think of the the brahmaviharas too as "ethical") -- hence (by being ethical or virtuous) you might hope for social harmony, being "one" with society
The Buddhist "four noble truths" teach that people suffer when they crave for things to be other than as they are -- I first learned that as "craving to have what they don't have, craving to keep what they can't keep" -- the act of not craving for things to be other than as they are, of avoiding a split between "how it is" versus "how I want it to be", is a type of unity. Whereas the opposite (i.e., craving) is a kind of split between the universe and the self, e.g. "the universe says X but 'I' want Y instead" creates a separate 'I'.
It's not all apathy, though -- there is such a thing as good and bad, right and wrong, so there is such a thing as "right effort" for example. Part of the way in which you don't crave for things to be other than as they are is to behave well, do good -- and to "purify the mind", maybe to unlearn any bad habits -- so that you have no cause for regret, no remorse.
There's some moderation, or "a middle way between extremes", in Buddhism -- e.g. though monks and nuns may be penniless, laypeople hopefully support them with food and clothes and medicine, the necessities.
Some Buddhists emphasise that inter-dependence further -- see e.g. interbeing.
There's a lot of sensible advice -- for example, "have good friends, good teachers, not bad friends".
There are various forms of meditation to calm the mind; and/or to train the mind (to practice better mental activity, for example kindness rather than any anger); and/or to avoid getting upset while the mind is active; and/or to see the world "as it truly is" (perhaps without too much additional mental baggage).
There is a "non-self" doctrine or principle (or characteristic) in Buddhism, which maybe long to explain, but perhaps that (i.e. training to be sort of less selfish) is part of being "one".

In Western terms, the usual context for this could be explained as determinism, accepted in its positive sense.
Our default model of life entails this notion of "beings" or "organisms" freely moving in an otherwise deterministic or at least probabilistic universe. These beings are supposed to have a unique ability to act at their own will, as opposed to being moved by the causes and conditions as the rest of the universe.
From Buddhist perspective, this special status of separation is understood to lead to both ethical as well as psychological problems. One simple solution is to abandon the default model and adopt a different paradigm in which our actions are understood to be continuous with the causes and conditions in the objective universe. This is what's generally known in the Western philosophy as determinism.
However, from Buddhist perspective, this perspective is not equivalent with fatalism, which is in fact sharply criticized by the Buddha. Instead, determinism is understood to be the "external" perspective on things, while from the subjective perspective each individual sentient being still has the job of making the best possible choice out of the available possibilities. Indeed, this is the same exact situation as is faced by an intelligent AI-driven robotic agent (or a virtual agent such as an NPC), which has to make decisions about its actions despite being a part of the otherwise fully deterministic environment (the computer system).
So, in Buddhist practice, there is this progression from the initial assuming that one has free-will but in fact being constrained by all kinds of fears and insecurities limiting one's spontaneity and will-power -- to fully realizing that one is an integral part of the fully deterministic system, while at the same time opening up to spontaneity and subjective freedom by breaking through fears and insecurities, and by developing the will-power to counteract the pathological & destructive types of external influences. The resulting state is one where will-power, control over one's mind and mood, a sense of no fear, are co-joined with the fully clear understanding of the deterministic rules governing the universe, resulting in a state of wise, enlightened, optimistic spontaneity of one no longer in conflict with the causes and conditions of the objective universe.
All of the above is not the "High Buddhism", but rather one practical aspect of it that has to be mastered. What I call "High Buddhism", is understanding (and practical realization thereof) that such concepts as "organism", "universe", "all" etc. - are mere constructs that are defined arbitrarily and relatively to whatever axioms and contexts we happen to choose. The very act of defining these concepts places certain restrictions on us, making us bound to operate within the definition of the world framed in terms of such concepts. The "High Buddhism" is clear understanding of how framing the experience affects our sense of what's going on and the possible acts. When this understanding is reached, one realizes in practice that spontaneity vs determinism is in fact an artificial dichotomy that only exists because of the conflict between two theoretical descriptions of how things work. To become actually free from all such descriptions is therefore the necessary step to Final Liberation.
At the end of the day, the state sought by Buddhist practitioners is the unity of harmony with the (deterministic) forces operating the universe -- on one hand -- with subjective freedom to choose our own interpretation of what's going on -- on the other. It's a state of indescribable freedom which is not in any (subjective nor objective)  conflict with the way things are.
This is what's understood under "being the part of the universe", according to my studies and experience gained from practice.


text:
Is hidding or cheating about ones identity unskilful and probably harmful for others as well?
Is hidding or cheating about ones identity unskilful and probably harmful for others as well?
Food for consideration to answer:

A, in many ways, related topic.
A Sutta
A clear warning if detected as deliberately.
Some points on personal datas, Monks and Noble people... as kamma-vipaka do not care about status.

To challenge the question and arguments for clearance.
[Note: this gift of Dhamma is not thought to be for any trade, wordily stakes or exchange]

Anonymous (online) Bikkhus
This topic was about whether someone was at fault when they said something (asked a question) to someone online, assuming that other person was a lay-person, if that other person was actually ordained but not advertising that status in their online persona.

I don't feel comfortable passing judgement on how a monk may use the internet. Instead, doesn't a monk have a preceptor, isn't this kind of question (discipline) something a monk or a nun may discuss with their peers?
Assuming people don't lie, the software (the web site) need not to do something special (e.g. different colours for user names) -- instead the user name or avatar or user profile information is sufficient (see e.g. Tenzin Dorje, yuttadhammo, and other users e.g. with "bhikkhu" or "bhikkhuni" in their names).
I'd tend to agree with one of the comments there, that if a Bhikkhu doesn't appear to be a Bhikkhu, and if someone addresses them as if they weren't a bhikkhu, then the person addressing them is not wrong-doing -- because if they don't know that the one who they're addressing is a bhikkhu then they can't have the intention to mis-speak
Perhaps though you shouldn't speak one way to a bhikkhu and another way to a lay-person, for example:

Perhaps you should try to "be nice" (and not disrespectful) to everyone
The question Who here is a Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi, or Arahant? was closed on this site

I can't tell whether the OP is being sarcastic, and for what reason, when he or she starts to address as "Bhante" someone who claims not to be monk, towards the end -- predictably, "sarcasm" is mentioned in an essay on right speech

For many of us, the most difficult part of practicing right speech lies in how we express our sense of humor. Especially here in America, we're used to getting laughs with exaggeration, sarcasm, group stereotypes, and pure silliness — all classic examples of wrong speech. If people get used to these sorts of careless humor, they stop listening carefully to what we say. In this way, we cheapen our own discourse.

Cunda Sutta: To Cunda (Snp 1.5)
I'm not sure how that's related to the question. I guess it's the verse,

Creating a counterfeit
  of those with good practices,
  self-asserting, a corrupter of families,[1] intrusive,
  deceitful, unrestrained, chaff,
  going around in disguise:
          he's one who corrupts the path.

The last verse ...

Any householder, having ferreted these out
      — a discerning disciple of those who are noble —
  knowing they aren't all the same,
  seeing this, his conviction's not harmed.
  For how could the corrupt with the un-
      corrupt,
          the impure with the pure,
              be put on a par?"

... suggests that any householder can and should be able to discern the difference, doesn't it?
I think that regular users of an online site probably do form a (private) impression of other users -- e.g. who is self-asserting and unrestrained, who isn't -- no matter by what name the other users identify themselves.
Perhaps people should beware though that comparing people can be considered 'conceit'.

Iti 25

For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you, there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This: telling a deliberate lie.

That's in one of the suttas to Rahula too.
It might be worth noting that the vinaya's description of a lie includes both "intention to deceive" and "making the effort to tell". If you don't say something, I think that's not considered a lie.

Avatar and User placements

As we all know, the internet is often used as a playground to test some things but also a beloved place to try to addopt a different personality.

Yes, perhaps so. After I used the internet for a while (in the 1990s) I decided to use a user name (e.g. "ChrisW") which I could recognise as being my own name. I don't remember that I was ever cruel when I previously used a more anonymous pseudonym, but maybe laughed too much, too many (maybe silly) jokes, insufficiently serious.
I don't consider that as "intention to deceive", though, because I expect that no-one will assume that's my real or legal name ("Chris" is a diminutive of my given name, and "W" an abbreviation of my family name -- this kind of abbreviation is one of several conventional ways to create an online user name).
Incidentally, do you know why people are given new, Buddhist names (e.g. Ven. "Bodhi" and so on)?

On this level it has nothing to do with pride

Really? I assume that care to maintain one's reputation, maintain a good name, having a sense of shame, are all matters of pride, are they not, but perhaps used to a good end.

One example is the identification with a picture that one likes to represent.

I find it easier not to use/choose one, I hope that's alright.
I've learned that in France it's conventional to include a photo of yourself with your resume in a job application -- which I found very very surprising because in 'my home country' you'd never include a photo. The problem with a photo is that it allows people to see your age, your gender, your ethnicity -- which are all (according to my home society's employment laws and conventions) invalid reasons for preferring one job applicant over another.
In summary if you want to judge me I expect you'll do that based on what I write, not on my photograph.

I guess I have mention it already on another place, that it is very important to declare ones gender, ones age and the status of practice as one protects others from doing wrong by wrong estimations and one also takes care of one self not to interpret (procects) one self into something one is not really.

I assume you can estimate my gender, age, and status fairly accurately -- I make no effort to conceal them. And if I don't tell you and you estimate wrong, I don't think that's your wrong-doing.
Perhaps everyone should generally be careful not to assume (take as true) things that they don't know, though.

A monk for example, is ... also not allowed to teach if ones face is hidden.

This site, this whole medium (i.e. online, text-based discourse) is what it is.

At this point (in english its a little dificult for me to use old polite language)

Yes. French (perhaps like German) still preserves e.g. a polite distinction between singular tu and plural vous (German du and sie if I recall correctly).
Here (outside a city) it's normal to greet (say bonjour, "good day") to everyone you meet (e.g. when you're walking outside), and it's polite for the more junior person to greet the older person first (and I don't wear a hat but I take my sunglasses off when I do that, just to be polite, you know).
I think that even in France (or in French) it's conventional to be less formal online -- for example to address people as tu on a discussion board.

It is good and proper, to inform others about your practice status ... about your age and you gender.

One of the things I've noticed about this site is that people don't use the chat room. When I was (previously) active on other Stack Exchange sites, the site's chat room was used -- to greet people, to discuss the site, to joke, to chat about people's everyday concerns.
This site (all Stack Exchange sites) are especially for Q&A, so the content (i.e. the topic) is important and the identities of the users are less so. In fact, questions about users (e.g. "how many of you users are Theravada?") are explicitly off-topic.
If you want to get to know people/users in other ways, if users want to chat with each other -- and I'm not saying they shouldn't -- then a chat room is the place to do that, for example this chat room.
To be allowed to talk in chat, though, you need a reputation of (only) 20 on this site (I guess that policy helps to keep chat free of spammers). You could easily have a reputation of 20, but you'd have to be willing to "register" your user name, i.e. by replying to the email, which SE sends you when you create an "unregistered" account (instead of discarding the "reputation points" which you accrue here, by having a series of different unregistered accounts which are all named "Samana Johann", but which the system is unable to merge and which are discarded whenever you use a different computer).
Your using unregistered accounts also means that people are much less able to find everything you previously posted on the site -- but actually there's no rule against it, so if you think that's for the best then you do that -- you may or may not want to reconsider that.

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

I would suggest the simple answer is: since hiding or cheating falls under violating the Fourth Precept, it is harmful. Since everything is interdependent, it is harmful to others.
However, we can also consider another perspective: none of us truly knows him/her self. We constantly wear social masks and believe our social identities and roles define us, and we like to manifest this positive self-image toward others. This is why according to the Kalama Sutra the Buddha said:

Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
  priests.

Because they are subject to that same desire to manifest their projection of identity and authority.
In letting go of this desire to define ourselves is the realization of the illusion of self and other. The question drops away on its own.
But don't take my word for it ;)

Sadhu Nyom Codosaur Maybe the relativations are not so needed. But kalama is good:"And this greedy / aversive /deluded person, overcome by greed/aversion/delution, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering." And some lost in Q reads.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What does wrong freedom or wrong release mean?
This is from the Paṭhamaadhammasutta (AN10.113).

Katamo ca bhikkhave adhammo ca anattho ca?
Micchā-diṭṭhi, micchā-saŋkappo,
  micchā-vācā micchā-kammanto, micchā-ājīvo,  micchā-vāyāmo,  micchā-sati,micchā-samādhi, micchā-ñāṇaɱ, micchā-vimutti.
And what are not-dhamma and not-aim?
Wrong view, wrong thinking, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong living,
  wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration, wrong knowledge,
  wrong release.

(Found on Obo-net.)
Does anyone know what wrong release could be? Does the Buddha explain this anywhere?
I can't really understand how release can be wrong. Seems to me that one is or is not released.

one guess is such a form of release may be relative to a prior (existing) state of being.  this form of release may not be conducive to further release...

more likely it's associated with release following the noble 8-fold path..

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN29.html#mn29note03

All other releases or freedom which are not that of Nibbana (e.g. still subject to birth, aging, sickness end death), are called miccha, wrong. There are countless of them. With every action, in all ways of desire beings seeks for release. micchā-magga, the wrong way of practice leads to miccha-vimutti, wrong release (no release). The nature of wrong freedom, which is gained on and on, after certain stilling, is that it does not last, is dependend and subject to decay.
To count them all would be endless, but maybe such words like "pseudo-liberalism" or "householder-equanimity" in wordily spheres or the many kinds of Nihilism incl. based on Jhana may help. The possible most structured list of miccha-vimutti by the Sublime Buddha can be found in the Brahma Net. And here a sample of an atheist: "I live free of the guilt of sin and the fear of Hell."

"N'atthi santi param sukham"
  "The is no peace like (the peace) of happiness beyond" (e.g. Nibbana)"

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma not thought for any trade, stakes or exchange for wordily gains]

I don't think it's defined in the suttas, though it's mentioned in several.
I guess it's some kind of carelessness that may arise as a result of wrong view -- perhaps "nothing matters because it's all erased when you die (annihilationism)", or, "I'm sure to go to heaven because I practice the correct rites and rituals", or, etc.
In contrast, buddha-vacana.org identifies two types of right liberation:

vimutti: emancipation, release, liberation. There are two types of liberation, explained at AN 2.32:

ceto·vimutti (liberation of the mind) -- from absence of desire
paññā·vimutti (liberation by wisdom) -- from absence of ignorance

Puthujjanas have created so many mistaken views, so do not expect to find a long list.
Usually the Samyutta about ditthis is here
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_24_ditthisamyutta.htm
Here is how wrong view arises
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.154/en/sujato
which is clinging on 5 aggregates. So anything, like view, speach, samadhi, following grasping at the 5 aggregates is qualified of wrong.
The buddha explains that in the first sermon. he has his citta in samadhi but he did not know that grasping is wrong and that samadhi stemming form grasping is wrong samadhi, while the good samadhi is the samadhi based on sense restrain and relinquishment and ultimately viroga

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


text:
Apparently stream-entrants are destined to attain Nibbana but what about non-stream-entrants?
Are only stream-entrants destined to attain Nibbana?
I don't know whether it is possible to be destined to attain Nibbana more than 7 lives beforehand.
Is it not possible to be destined to attain Nibbana more than 7 lives beforehand ?

Say, you wanted to lose weight and stay healthy. If you have no idea about Calories, Carbs, Fat, and Exercise - you may spend years randomly trying all types of foods, fasting, etc. - your weight going up and down endlessly. But once you get a clear idea of the science behind the body weight, you start eating healthy and exercising. Then you can draw a burn-down chart of weight by day and see how fast you're moving. At this point you can more or less precisely predict how long it will take you to reach your target weight. So it gets rather "deterministic" for you (wrong use of the word but I will go with you here). While for the people who are on a random diet based on their cravings and dislikes, the weight loss is pretty much never going to happen, because they don't have a methodical system in place that creates rational causes leading in the right direction.
Similarly, with stream entry. You understand "wrongness" (dukkha), the way it arises from conflict between "is" and "should", and the behaviors leading to conflict. You also understand "peace", the way it arises from the cessation of conflict, and the behaviors leading to no-conflict. Once you clearly see that, you can act accordingly. Once you act accordingly, it can be known that you will finish the process in finite time (seven lives being a figure of speech).
It's really simple, no need to over-complicate it.

First off, although determinism was established by the Greek philosophers, during the 7th and 6th centuries BC, so around the life time of the historical Buddha, it is unlikely that this Greek concept was known in Northern India during that era. There is no direct reference to determinism in the original canon. The same goes for "free will", which is a Judeo-Christian concept. You are, as it were, looking at the concept of karma and rebirth through western spectacles.
The Buddhist concepts of karma and rebirth are heavily influenced by Hinduism, the predominant cosmology in Northern India during the Buddha's lifetime. As the concepts developed in Buddhism, in many lineages they were not taken literally anymore. The 6 realms of reincarnation were taken to mean the changing state of mind a person goes through daily (e.g. anger, hunger, delight,...). In Nichiren, this is called "Three thousand realms in a single moment of life".
Lastly, on the concept of Dukkha, can be translated as "suffering", but is also translated as "uneasy, uncomfortable, unpleasant, difficult, causing sadness". It refers primarily to the unsatisfactoriness of daily life caused by the five Skandhas, not necessarily to a "judgement day" eternal type of suffering as conceived in Christianity.

Determinism is true for stream entrants e.g Attainment of nibbana within 7 lives and definitely within 7 lives etc. So why not for others who aren't stream entrants?
One reason may be that a stream-entrant sees the dhamma properly, and has "noble virtue" (ariya sila) -- and therefore can't (or won't) slip back into samsara nor be reborn into a lower destination (i.e lower than human, e.g. animal or ghost or hell).
I think the premise is that both of these (i.e. right view and noble virtue) are necessary for liberation.
I'm not sure where the "7 lives" comes from, perhaps it's e.g. AN 3.88 ...

If they don’t penetrate so far, with the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and then make an end of suffering.
Taṃ vā pana anabhisambhavaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti, sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

... or something similar in SN 13.2.
Some people, or at least one person i.e. here, is of the view that sattakkhattuparamaṃ is referring to "seven more fetters" (as stream entrants have abandoned the first 3 of 10 fetters), rather than "seven more lives".
I don't see how to be sure of what sattakkhattuparamaṃ means -- translators e.g. Ven. Sujato and Thanissaro Bhikkhu say "lives" or "lifetimes" -- but "fetters" would make sense too, in context.
I might end up suffering severely in the next life
Perhaps ... isn't it true that anyone unenlightened or only partially enlightened isn't immune from suffering?
I think though that in a partially enlightened person, "the path leading to the cessation of suffering" is seen and is being developed.
Perhaps too your perspective changes with stream entry, which the abandoning of "identity-view" and vicikicchā.
In fact all my striving might end up being completely forgotten and eradicated and I might end up being extremely ignorant forever and suffering forever (due to "free will"), whereas someone who had no interest in the Buddha and never does might end up suffering less overall due to "free will".
I don't know what "free will" doctrine you're referring to.
You seem to be comparing people ("I strive and might suffer" versus "they have no interest and might suffer less").
That kind of comparison might not be skilful -- I think it's a kind of comparison which the brahmaviharas are meant to help you to avoid.
There is one form of comparison (or "conceit") that is said to be skilful, i.e. "That person is progressing toward enlightenment, if I practice as they do then I will too".
Then it's as if for non-stream entrants there is no free will
Maybe avoid extreme views. Maybe "everything is random" is one extremity, "everything is under one's self-control" is another extremity, and both wrong views.
Speaking of "streams", perhaps an analogy might be taking a boat across a stream -- you don't control the stream (though you may observe it), but if you're skilful and diligent, well taught, and have a good boat, then you may cross it.

Thanks for asking -- maybe I mis-remembered, I don't find that phrase. Perhaps it's "ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones, unbroken, unflawed, unblemished, untainted, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion" (SN 55.1). See also The Character of a Stream-winner which mentions "virtue".

It might be worth mentioning that different schools have different definitions/understandings of what it is or means to "enter the stream" -- see e.g. "equipoise" in this topic.

Another definition might be SN 12.15 -- truly seeing the world, not attached to a notion of self, no doubt about suffering arising and ceasing, and a knowledge of this that's independent of others.

Why aren't any non-stream-entrants destined to attain Nibbana?

Stream Entrant means, he has understood very clearly what's the issue with this world (pancca-upadanaskanda) and has seen and understood from his own life. After he has that knowledge (with the understanding) he will gradually (can be instantly depend on how wise he is) attain Nibbana. So without knowing the issue no one can attain Nibbana. It's like only when you understand how to swim (or ride a bicycle) you just can swim ( or ride). Just because you take lessons you can't swim or ride, you have to experience it by your self.

I don't know whether it is possible to be destined to attain Nibbana
  more than 7 lives beforehand. It isn't possible to be destined to attain Nibbana more than 7 lives beforehand (?).

Many interpretations around this.

The seven represents rest of the phala and marga (Stream-enterer, path to Once-returner, Once-returner, path to Non-returner, Non-returner, path to Arahant, Arahant).
The rest of the fetters (after being a stream enterer, he has dropped first 3 fetters out of 10. So 7 rest to be dropped as well).

With all these, it's bit hard to say this is about 7 lives (births). Since above are bit more logical and that sense, this can happens in the same birth as well. If we think about Buddha's time this makes more sense. Because there are many who attain Nibbana in the same life. Anyway I'm not sure which is right.

Brain-masturbating does not lead to release but is the joy in becoming => one who put's thinks like taught into practice is one who knows and sees by himselves by time.
When ever the free-will debate arises my person encourages to following:
Point with your right hands finger to your right eye. Focus only on the finger. Now when the concentration is good fastly push the finger into your eye.
Much insight!
Addition:
The are, by the way, two kind of non-stream-enter, who will arrive at Nibbana by entering the stream at least at times of death: Faith-follower and Dhamma-follower. Aside of those worldling, for all others, the whole Samsara is open for long, long time, for the most.
Okkanta-samyutta — Entering
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

"I don't understand the finger thing" because you didn' put it into practice... @Angus

"looks like the Buddha never said whether nibbana is guaranteed or not for those who haven't achieved stream entry" it's not guaranteed and less will archiv it, Nyom @Angus. Why? Because even lucky to meet, they don't put it into practice...

Puthujjanas love to claimthat

they know what they are doing,
know what is good for people,
know what people should do and should not do.

From this, thePuthujjanas love to create rules and chase people who appear to them to not follow those rules, in order to judge them and punish them, and educate them to their rules. Not a single good thing stems from their delusion.
But at the end of the day, a puthujjana has zero knowledge of morality, no matter what puthujjanas claim,

Puthujjanas do not know what is right
Puthujjanas do not know what is wrong
Puthujjanas do not know how do stop doing wrong in order to start
doing right

THe only good thing a puthujjan can do is:

acknowledge that this puthujjana has zero knowledge of morality
ask a buddha what are good actions and wrong actions and how to avoid
bad actions and how to act well
memorize word for word the reply
strive to do good and avoid at all cost doing bad

this what the buddha explains about karma :

"Here, student, some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman, does not ask: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir? What is unwholesome?
  What is blamable? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What
  should not be cultivated? What, by my doing it, will be long for my
  harm and suffering? Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my
  welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he
  will be stupid wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  stupidity, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, not to
  ask: 'What is wholesome?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for
  my welfare and happiness?'
"But here some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman, asks: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be
  long for my welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and
  completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human
  state, he is wise wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  wisdom, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, to ask: 'What
  is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long
  for my welfare and happiness?'
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.nymo.html

But puthujjanas prefer to base their actions on their opinions, on their views, feelings, desires, gut feelings, instinct which is precisely what makes them suffer in the first place.

Determinism is true for stream entrants e.g Attainment of nibbana within 7 lives and definitely within 7 lives etc. So why not for others who aren't stream entrants?

A simple analogy, 2 people try to climb a mountain, one's already reached the peak while the other's still trying to reach it. For the one who already did, it's guaranteed and just a matter of time (in 7 days or fewer) to get down to the bottom of the mountain on the other side, while for the other guy, there's no guarantee at all: he can reach the top soon after or continue to climp and trip, climb and trip several times before reaching the top. Similarly, Stream-Enterers have passed one of the biggest hurdles, the accomplishment of moral virtues (AN 9.12) and that's why they've earned the warranty. "Determinism" sometimes leads to wrong connotations cuz we worldlings operate in "deterministic" mode all the time. To an untrained Puthujjhana male who's strong and lustful, putting him in a dark room with a young voluptuous lustful female, and it's "deterministic" that the two are going to engage in some interesting business.

Of course you can add whatever details you want. But the gist of the matter should be pretty clear. There's a threshhold to be reached, and once one's over the hump, the end result is pretty much set. This applies to everything in life, not just the state of Stream Entry.

You definitely should check again cuz you've been doing it all the time. As a kid, once you've studied hard and done all your homeworks, passing the class is guaranteed. At work, work diligently to meet all the deadlines, and not getting fired is guaranteed (whether u get laid off is a different story due to the economy). You used to be a chain smoker, quit smoking with strong resolution, exercise and quit eating junk food, and your health will definitely improve, guaranteed, etc...

@Angus Perhaps it isn't a matter of 10 minutes versus 11. A neighbour (a musician) said that to learn to play a new musical instrument you should practice for 5 minutes every day -- that practising regularly, 5 minutes every day, is the effective way to learn, and that half an hour of practice once per week is not -- that if you practice regularly for a short time then on some days you might practice for longer, but that the important thing when training -- and that what determines whether you continue to make progress -- is to develop the new habit.

So, I guess if the key point of OP question is the discrete threshold, then that's what we should address. The discrete threshold is due to understanding of the fundamental principle behind 4NT, you either get it or not. If you get it and know what you're doing, the process is finite. If you don't get it, the process may never finish.

I believe you seem to imply that because stream-entrants will achieve enlightenment in a given time, that it suggests a determinism absent from other spiritual aspirants.
However, karma is karma. First, according to many Buddhist traditions, all sentient beings will attain enlightenment eventually. Isn't this determinism?
More so, I don't believe one can cheat karma. Beneficial and compassionate acts will produce later reward, while detrimental and harmful acts will cause later suffering. I don't think that it is different for stream entrants and other practitioners in this respect. Bodhisattvas, for example, may 'deterministically' affect their rebirth, due to karmically induced merit.
Where there is a difference is when it comes to 'definite goodness', namely the release from karma itself. This is achieved by gaining insight into ignorance by means of understanding emptiness, by gaining a view into how reality is. The karmic seeds come to an end via this knowledge. Thus, here one might argue an escape from determinism, if only the determinism of the cyclical nature of samsara. But, in a sense, the outcome is still deterministic, because release from samsara occurs also by virtue of karmic seeds. I doubt that a person without merit might achieve enlightenment.
I feel when you talk about free will, you mean 'chance'. You allude to various metaphysical ideals about intention, the nature of ignorance, etc. which I can't all address easily. But, I wish to say that Buddhism emphasizes greatly cause and effect, whereby effects arise from causes. Through a worldly view, this causal chain explains what we perceive, and may be deterministic. But for example with Nagarjuna's ultimate view, in the two truths, causal links are denied and questioned as 'empty of self'.
Since emptiness is acquired as a view (without being grasped quite like a view), it possesses a mental reality, that of wisdom; this wisdom, though mental, reflects how reality actually is. Hence, paradoxically, wisdom affects even karma, via emptiness -- it alters how karma is perceived, and consequently how it exists. Just as this removes a person from the shackles of karma, it also precludes determinism. So, if emptiness affects 'determinism', it implies determinism is also empty of intrinsic existence.
This mirrors psychological phenomena whereby a paradigm shift causes a self-fulfilling effect, for example with self-efficacy. People sometimes fail to do things out of limiting beliefs, and have trouble changing these views. Yet, they could change their views but a static conception inhibits this possibility.
I invoke this psychological phenomenon because Buddhism speaks of diverse mental factors linked with confidence or even skillful means. One may view your notion of determinism applied to spiritual aspirants as such a limiting belief. I suggest strongly you look into the subject of Buddhist 'emptiness', as in addition to potentially solving such questions, it expands one's understanding as a whole; if everything is empty of intrinsic essence, then so are the variety of limitations inhibiting your aspirations to enlightenment.
Hope this helps!

"First, according to many Buddhist traditions, all sentient beings will attain enlightenment eventually." Possible Hindus using Buddha to trade, and yes they are many...

Stream entry is the point at which the teachings become fully understood, not just intellectually, but also through one's experience.
When a stream entrant feels jealousy due to deeply ingrained latent tendencies and habits, he can quickly see how his jealousy relates to his clinging and craving. He is not free from suffering yet, but he can see how everything works. He also has had a glimpse of Nibbana, at least in moments of mindfulness (sati sampajanna).
The stream entrant has lost the first three fetters - doubt on the Buddha's teachings, attachment to rituals and rules, and belief in a self (or self-view). He has lost his self-belief or self-view, but not his self-habit. There are no more doubts because the teachings have been fully understood - it's very clear what everything means and how everything fits together.
In SN 13.1, the Buddha taught that the suffering remaining for a stream entrant is like dirt at the tip of a finger nail, compared to suffering that has been endured, the size of planet Earth.
Before attaining stream entry, the enthusiastic Buddhist learns about the four stages of enlightenment - stream entry, once-returner, non-returner and the arahant. He also learns about the seven remaining lifetimes (at most) of the stream entrant, and the relatively little amount of suffering left for the stream entrant, relative to the past suffering that seems endless.
After attaining stream entry, then comes the first plot twist.
Self-view or self-belief is now completely gone. So, WHOSE seven lifetimes is remaining? WHO is going to be reborn?
Then comes the second plot twist - no more attachment to rules and rituals.
What does this mean? Now the stream entrant doesn't care how many more lifetimes exactly he has left, or how many stages of enlightenment are there, or at what stage he is at, or which precept he did not keep perfectly, or where he will be reborn. To him, the only important task left is to uproot his remaining fetters, latent tendencies and bad habits, without caring about how long that would take.


text:
Why are exceptionally tall statues of the Buddha and Guanyin built?
When I read this article on the tallest statues in the world, I was struct by how many of them were of important Buddhist figures: of the fifteen tallest statues six are of Guanyin (Kannon/Avalokiteśvara), five of the Buddha, and one of Kṣitigarbha, for a total of twelve out of the top fifteen!
Why are such tall statues built? What significance does the height of these statues have in the religious lives of Buddhist adherents?
Or are these statues not built for true religious purposes, but as an unofficial competition between nations, just like they compete over the tallest skyscraper? Nine out of the fifteen were built in the 21th century. Who commissions these statues? Statues of this size would be beyond the budgets of most temples.
See also: this question on why precious metals are used for Buddhist statues.

For what it's worth, on other SE sites (like Politics.SE and Skeptics.SE) questions about intent are off-topic because they're unknowable. "Why did politician X do action Y?", for example, requires you to read or guess their private intention. Those sites do allow you to ask questions about the public record, e.g. "What reason did politician X say, for doing action Y?". It's not clear whether you're asking here about people's private intentions or their public reasons. A question about "unofficial competition" for example might be difficult or impossible to answer truthfully, don't you agree?

@ChrisW The abundance of very tall statues makes this a distinguishing feature of Buddhism - no other religion has so many. That there are 12+, in many countries, from different branches of Buddhism, suggests there's a common thinking behind it. If there was one giant statue commissioned by a single rich king your point about unknowable intent would be spot on. But because there are so many, my assumption is it's not just coincidence, and I expect people have written about their reasons for building them. It would be like asking why Christian Cathedrals are usually aligned to the east.

OK, so you're asking "What's the general, public reason?" with an especial emphasis on "Why big?". Like I think that Christian doctrine could explain why cathedrals are built and why they're aligned eastwards. The tallest Christian churches are comparable in size to the tallest Buddhist statues, fwiw.

@ChrisW Yep, that's right. It could be for devotional reasons, larger being more beautiful, like the answers to the precious metals question explained. It could be to attract believers to the location, either on pilgrimages, or permanently. The monetary donations required to build them could be signs of devotion, so bigger means a more devout community. These are just guesses of mine so they could all be way off.

Buddhism is older than some religions. This age difference takes it back to eras that people were not running the race that we were running today. That must have allowed them to create these magnificent creations.
There are mediation practices that you can follow when you are involved in a task like this (i.e. - Budhdhanussathi). Large number of people must have been involved in the creation of these statues. So, these statues can be the result of many devotees meditating.
Competition is not a Buddhist virtue. However, tireless effort is. These could be the result of many people challenging themselves in something that is viewed as 'impossible' by many. In that, these statues are a source of inspiration for many thousands in realizing that - 'nothing is impossible, so is Nirvana'.

These statues are all pretty recent, I think all within the last century, most within the last decade or two.

@curiousdannii Apologies for my opinionated answer. Maybe you can dig some records or track down the organizations that made them you can get an exact reason.

Could you please provide a link to an English speaking write-up on Budhdhanussathi? I would like to learn about different meditation practices, and everything I see when searching online is in Sinhala or similar.

@ChrisRogers I'm sorry but there are very few English translations on Budhdhanussathi I could find. However you can refer to Mahanama Suttha which details the Budhdhanussathi. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_13.html

OP: Why are such tall statues built?

Why do people have statues for the Buddha?
From DN16, the Buddha explained to Ananda, why it is beneficial to have a stupa for a Tathagata (a Buddha):

And why, Ananda, is a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One
worthy of a stupa? Because, Ananda, at the thought: 'This is the stupa
of that Blessed One, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' the hearts of
many people will be calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with
their minds established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the
body, after death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly
happiness. And so also at the thought: 'This is the stupa of that
Paccekabuddha!' or 'This is the stupa of a disciple of that Tathagata,
Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' or 'This is the stupa of that
righteous monarch who ruled according to Dhamma!' — the hearts of many
people are calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with their minds
established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the body, after
death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness. And it is
because of this, Ananda, that these four persons are worthy of a
stupa.

I would therefore extrapolate that the purpose of the statue of the Buddha is similar to the purpose of the stupa of a Buddha, which is, to be an inspiration for peace of mind and happiness.
Today, people in USA remember Martin Luther King, people in India remember Mahatma Gandhi and people in South Africa remember Nelson Mandela. They may have photos or statues of these revered persons put up in public places and treated in a respectable way. The statue of the Buddha is no different. They are there to serve as icons of inspiration.
The Buddha, at least from a Theravada perspective, is no more supernaturally reachable through prayers and rituals, than King, Gandhi or Mandela.

OP: What significance does the height of these statues have in the religious lives of Buddhist adherents?

Now, how was the stupa of a universal monarch or a Buddha built?
From the same sutta:

"But how, venerable Ananda, do they act respecting the body of a
universal monarch?"
"The body of a universal monarch, Vasetthas, is first wrapped round
with new linen, and then with teased cotton wool. And again it is
wrapped round with new linen, and again with teased cotton wool, and
so it is done up to five hundred layers of linen and five
hundred of cotton wool. When that is done, the body of the universal
monarch is placed in an iron oil-vessel, which is enclosed in
another iron vessel and a funeral pyre is built of all kinds of
perfumed woods, and so the body of the universal monarch is burned. And at a crossroads a stupa is raised for the universal
monarch. So it is done, Vasetthas, with the body of a universal
monarch.
"And even, Vasetthas, as with the body of a universal monarch, so
should it be done with the body of the Tathagata; and at a crossroads
also a stupa should be raised for the Tathagata. And whoever shall
bring to that place garlands or incense or sandalwood
paste, or pay reverence, and whose mind becomes calm there — it will
be to his well being and happiness for a long time."

So, the Buddha stupa was not a simple tomb. Rather, it was a very grand memorial shrine.
Similarly, I extrapolate that the purpose of the great height of the statues of the Buddha is to function as a grand memorial.
It's no different to the giant 38m tall statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro or the giant statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.
Doesn't the giant 24m tall statue of the Buddha (the Great Buddha in Bodh Gaya, India) below make you think "this is the statue of that Blessed One, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!" Doesn't it inspire you and fill you with awe?
Around 2.5km away from this statue, you can visit the Mahabodhi Temple and the Bodhi Tree, the exact location where the Buddha was said to have attained enlightenment. More places of inspiration.
The Great Buddha in meditation pose:

Okay, but you haven't in the slightest addressed my actual question, which is about the statues sizes.

@curiousdannii Updated the answer on statue sizes.

It's still only your speculations. Is there truly no indication from any official source as to the purpose or meaning behind these giant statues?

@curiousdannii Different traditions or sects may have different opinions. This is my opinion based on the Theravada tradition and the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) which tries to stick as closely as possible to the teachings of the historical person of Gautama Buddha. In the Buddha's time, there were no statues of him. The texts only talk about stupas which are memorial shrines. The Buddha famously said, "When you see the Dhamma (teachings), you see me. When you see me, you see the Dhamma." He said his own physical form is transient and unimportant. The teachings are what is most important.

@curiousdannii Statues of the Buddha first appeared as a consequence of the hellenization of Buddhism in the region of Afghanistan. See the Greco-Buddhism wikipedia article. It was not part of original Buddhism.

Statues last long beyond that of a life, and a picture says a thousand words. Statues also tend to be respected enough to not be 'touched up' therefore insight can be passed on in a way beyond that of words while the represented meaning is difficult to distort.
The greater the statue symbolises the importance of the lesson that is to be passed on.

What is the lesson from a very tall statue of Guanyin? Is it a different lesson from a shorter statue?

In essence of the Lady herself and what she represents, absolutely not.
The size is a display for the sake of reverence. "The lessons of the Lady are a greater concern than our own."

"The size is a display for the sake of reverence." If you can present proof of that, such as a quote from whoever made these statues, that would be great. That's what would actually answer this question, which so far none of the responses have done.

The proof would be in the records of the Committee responsible for the statues commission and possibly very difficult to get a hold of, or do not physically exist.
In saying that this research paper is similar to the processes of visual perception of size with regards to conception of design:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291798013_Visual_perception
"The size itself is a display for the sake of reverence" is a reminder for people who have little or no interest Dharma of Compassion; so they can 'feel' how the symbol of her dwarfs their little worlds.

See "Many motives, many fruits" and others in Generosity,dana, caga - Path to freedom, if wishing freedom rather than seek issues to protest.
Very useful practice to overcome envy and stinginess is the practice of mudita.
As for objects of veneration and the benefits see Respect: Physical Objects
[Note: this tiny building of Dhamma is not thought for any commercial use, trade, stakes or exchange for wordily gains]

Uh, what? I'm not protesting, envious, or stingy. I can't see in those links an answer to the question either.

You are a fast reader... (2 min for about 20 pages at the surface... "also cheating?") and there was a "if" in the protested sentence... @curiousdannii schmunzel

@Suchness is of course given to make use in accordiance with the dedication. How ever, my person had to find out that people here don't take it serious, leaving it just as a deliberated lie that they respect it, actually doing not. "Sad" but true. It's not clear why you delete you comment. Nothing wrong generally and good conduct to ask.

@Suchness is of course given to make use in accordiance with the dedication. How ever, my person had to find out that people here don't take it serious, leaving it just as a deliberated lie that they respect it, actually doing not. "Sad" but true. It's not clear why you delete you comment. Nothing wrong generally and good conduct to ask.

It's conventional on SE sites to quote a little of what you link to ... not so that SE can acquire the content, but so that the reader can see why the hyperlink is helpful and relevant to the question, and to make it clear which bit of the referenced text especially answers the questions. I guess that Suchness might have posted because of the OP's comment, "I can't see in those links an answer to the question" ... a quote might have clarified where the answer to the question is, in the links.

Also there are various topics on this site and different users are more and/or less interested and/or knowledgeable about different aspects. I don't know but people asking questions about statues might be more interested in culture or society than dhamma, or something like that. Anyway, the question is specific -- not "why do people give?" but "why are so many statues so big?"

When reflecting about the building of a Buddha-Image here it's the same. Not, or better very less sacrifices have effects on or toward magga, and many such sacrifice are even lead by miccha ditthi and gravely unskilfull. The does and those knowing mind of others know. nobody else. Foolish question, why so many? Why so many big cakes? Linga, yoni building is as old as there are beings. The more outwardly accumulating (dont confuse with giving), the lesser are mental qualities.

"quote a little of what you link to" since being clear about the fact that the accecpting of dedication is just a deliberated lie, there is really no good in sharing anything of Dhamma.

I thought your answer was clear even without quotes, so I didn't edit it.

"When he gives of what I want there is no need to make possible not so good...", that's the way of thinking of people with wrong view, with people thinking that they have inherent rights... yes. As long there are still resources they may live without wars outside....

The answer seems to have nothing to do with the question.


text:
Is (and why is) physical health important, as well as mind?
As we all know, the Buddha taught that everything is about mind -- including for example that Dukkha exists because of mind, because desire came into mind first no matter if it would affect us physically, because the main stream is the mind.
Even when the Buddha wasn't able to walk, yet he was enlightened.
So I would also ask if physical health would ever affect mind or mental health?
What about breaking precepts if it's matter of health -- for example if I'm suffering from headache then I can have aromatic therapy, or medicine including a little alcohol, or listening to music like that.
Why is the body important when one is enlightened or mindful? Can't we ignore what is happening with our body, and concentrate still on being calm, and focus on mind?

"why Buddha speaking about physical health?" -- Which speaking, which sutta, are you asking about?

@ChrisW I'm not asking about sutta but if it's matter of health or if there's health issue he permitted to break precepts. So that's why I've asked this question.

Sorry, I still don't understand the question. I think there are various vinaya rules which are relaxed when a monk is ill -- e.g. attending meetings, eating, medicine, slight quantities of alcohol.

I mean breaking precepts if it's matter of health. If I'm suffering from headache then I can have aromatic therapy or as you mentioned consuming alcohol.  or listening music like that. So may you would understand if I would ask why body is important when that one is en lighted or mindful.  Can't we ignore what is happening with our body and concentrate still being calm and focus on mind.

The Bhikkhuni sutta recommends food, for example, as follows:

This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

I suppose that taking medicine is for a similar purpose -- i.e. it's to destroy old feelings (of pain), and not to create new feelings (from intoxication or sensual indulgence).
The vinaya for example permits medicines to monks if they're sick, including medicines which contain alcohol, if the alcohol is in more-or-less undetectable quantities (alcohol is useful when creating certain medicines because it's an effective solvent e.g. of alkaloids).

See also the answers to the topic Experiencing physical pain.
You might also want to read:

What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying

Management of terminal pain and sedation
Most Buddhists believe that the mind must be as alert as possible at the time of death.
Taking into consideration overall well-being (including the mental state of the patient), nurses must balance the level of pain relief needed against the need for alertness in the dying Buddhist.
  Proper pain management can be achieved with minimal disruption of alertness by the use of the WHO analgesic ladder.
  The choice of non-opioid analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) and weak opioids should be preferred over strong opioids and neurolytic block therapy whenever possible, with the aim of reducing adverse side effects (i.e. sedation and cognitive impairment), thus maintaining alertness of the individual so that effective spiritual practices may continue. However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops, cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that may require the use of strong opioids for effective relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible that would support meditative spiritual practices.

The above is a small quote/extract, I recommend reading the whole article.
In other words medical providers are advised to (more or less as usual) adjust the amount and type of medicine, according to the amount of pain, and according to the patient's ability to tolerate it. The difference is that Buddhist patients tend to prefer to avoid mind-altering drugs for as long as feasible.
A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering

Why is the body important when one is enlightened or mindful?
Part of Buddhist doctrine is a Middle Way, e.g. MN 36 explains something like this:

"I thought: 'Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'
"I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, but that pleasure is not easy to achieve with a body so extremely emaciated. Suppose I were to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' So I took some solid food: some rice & porridge. Now five monks had been attending on me, thinking, 'If Gotama, our contemplative, achieves some higher state, he will tell us.' But when they saw me taking some solid food — some rice & porridge — they were disgusted and left me, thinking, 'Gotama the contemplative is living luxuriously. He has abandoned his exertion and is backsliding into abundance.

When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. SN35.97

Often, our minds become entangled with this and that, causing the body to suffer from neglect. One can get headaches and backaches from staring at a computer screen or any other demanding fixed task. If this is the case, then breaking precepts to "solve" a problem is simply negligence. Take breaks, walk around, meditate, etc. Often these suffice and don't involve breaking precepts.
If you have a severe illness that is causing pain, you still have choices. In fact you always have choices that you can align to the precepts with compassion for all including yourself. You can choose to follow the breath in meditation sitting, standing, or lying down. If you have enough attention to be soothed by music, you have enough attention to follow the song of your breathing. However, if the doctor is amputating your gangrenous leg, you might wish to consider anesthetic to avoid painful thrashing that would cause more injury to yourself and others.

(Why) can't we ignore...

Because choosing ignorance to run away from a painful feeling doesn't end well. Relinquish ignorance and self-mortification. Be skillful. :)

Not even more importand then a good destination, not to speak about awakening. There is no, no reason and valide excuse to break the precepts, not for others, not for oneself.

"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his father&mother, wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"
"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."
"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing my body. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would others gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"
"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."
Dhanañjani Sutta: To Dhanañjani

As for health: the Buddha supported always best care, yet in ways which are not harmful for oneself and all others. One needs this body to cross to the other shore, Nyom Swapnil.
[Note: this gift of Dhamma is not thought for commercial purpose, trade, stakes and exchange for any kind of wordily gains]

The state of your body can directly impact the state of your mind. An unhealthy stomache will have very negative impacts on your state of mind, emotions, and thoughts due to possible malnutrition, feelings of light headedness, nausea, inability to think clearly, etc. And thus the mind goes where the body goes, however, the body also goes where the mind goes.


text:
Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system?
Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system?

Buddhism: An Atheistic and Anti-Caste Religion?
  Modern Ideology and Historical Reality of the Ancient Indian Bauddha Dharma
  by Edmun Weber
Hans Wolfgang Schumann has statistically proven that almost all of Buddha's disciples were high caste people and that the Brahmans comprised the majority of the Sangha.
Buddha tells about the earlier Buddhas in the so-called Mahapadana Suttanta- Great Sermon on the Legends.21 He refers to their membership of (high) caste as the first characteristic of their full enlightenment. According to this report the Buddhas belonged all to the high castes, to the Kshatriyas and Brahmans. Buddha says proudly about himself "And now I, the venerable and fully enlightened one, was born a warrior and have come from the caste of the warriors, O monks.
21  Buddha - Die Lehre des Erhabenen. Aus dem Pali Kanon ausgewählt und übertragen von Paul Dahlke, München 1960.

Also:

The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the Brahmanas and of the warriors (Kshatriya).

So my question is, did the Buddha endorse or uphold the Vedic caste system?

This text appears in lots of places on the internet, in the context of some pro- or anti-Hinduism argument, saying that Buddhism's being anti-caste is a modern invention.

This topic (e.g. about Boddhisattvas beng high-caste) may be somewhat related to Can the Buddha ever be a woman?

Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system?

Of course not. There's a whole chapter in the Dhammapada where it shows what qualifies one as a brahman. None of them use high birth or high caste as the criteria:

Whoever does no wrong
      in body,
      speech,
      heart,
  is restrained in these three ways:
      he's what I call
      a brahman. ~~ Dhp 391 ~~

About the Buddha being born in the high caste, we shouldn't blame Him for that. If any, the blame should be on the way folks treated one another in ancient India. It's simply a skillful mean to be born in whatever condition that is most conducive and effective in propagating the Dhamma. The Buddha was a Kshatriya and He already got all kinds of attacks from all kinds of religious sects. Now imagine being born an Untouchable in ancient India and trying to propagate a whole brand new religion, well, good luck with that!

No
He just shown the path of truth to all the human beings and he didn't care who is he teaching.
Why do you think that he just taught high caste people.
He had also teach Dhamma to killer like "Angulimala" what was his cast.
Once brahmins were prank with one toilet cleaner and then Buddha reach there and asking brahmins to accept that guy as a human but they (was joking) conversely ask Buddha to teach him Dhamma.
Buddha replied them it's his pleasure to do.
So many examples and if you'd think he had endorsed high cast like brahmin then Indian brahmins should be Buddhist but picture is different even they won't accept Buddha as it is.
Buddha declined veda because of caste system defined in veda, so why Buddha would endorse or would discover caste system.
Buddhism is secular so there's no point to even think if he endorse caste system.
He bring Dhamma to the life of all the human being who is suffering from everything.

The Buddha did not endorse the caste system. Instead, he taught that any person, regardless of their birth, is destined for good outcomes, if they are consummate in virtue and indulge in good practices.
From the Gihi Sutta (AN 5.179):

In the same way,
  wherever one is born
  among human beings —
noble warriors, brahmans,
  merchants, workers,
  outcastes, or scavengers —
  if one is tame,
  with good practices,
  righteous,
  consummate in virtue,
  a speaker of truth,
  with conscience at heart,
  one who's abandoned birth & death,
  completed the holy life
  put down the burden,
  done the task
  fermentation-free,
  gone beyond all dhammas,
  through lack of clinging
  unbound:
  offerings to this spotless field
  bear an abundance of fruit.

From the Sundarika Sutta (SN 7.9):

Then Sundarika the brahmin went up to the Buddha, and said to him:
  “Sir, in what caste were you born?”

“Don’t ask about birth, ask about conduct.
    For any wood can surely generate fire.
    A steadfast sage, even though from a low class family,
    is a thoroughbred checked by conscience.

I don't think he necessarily endorsed it.  It was just the cultural reality of the time... just as were the Buddha's statements regarding women.  That said, take a look at any sutta having to do with Upali.  He was born a sudra, became enlightened, and was asked to speak by Maha Kassapa at the First Council.
For more on this topic, check out the article Buddhism and the Caste System written by Y. Krishan.

In my unbiased opinion Gautama Buddha did somewhat support and oppose the caste system.
Opposition:

Anyone of any caste can join the order
Anyone of any caste can become an arahant
Laws of kamma apply to all castes

Support:

States that people gain higher or lower births based on karmic causes
Sammasambuddhas are always born as high caste (Kshatriya, Brahmin)

The Assalayana Sutta and many other suttas seem to oppose the caste system:

"No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior... Even a brahman... Even a
  merchant... Even a worker... (Members of) all four castes — if they
  take life, steal, engage in sexual misconduct, tell lies, speak
  divisively, speak harshly, engage in idle chatter, are greedy, bear
  thoughts of ill will, & hold wrong views — on the break-up of the
  body, after death, reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell." (MN 93)

But then it's explained that Upali a chief arahant was born in a low-caste womb because he in a past existence as a Kshatriya had insulted a Buddha:

"Sneering at the Self-Become One, peaceful-hearted and attentive,
  today, due to that bad karma, I am born in this low-caste womb.
Don’t transgress even one moment; you will grieve for the moment
  missed. The moment is prepared for you: endeavor now for your own
  good." (Tha Ap 8)

The caste system still exists informally in countries where there's no formal caste system and the laws of kamma still apply...people are still viewed as like higher or lower caste automatically they still gain more fortunate or less fortunate births regardless.
But the caste system (whether formal or informal) only applies to lay people not to monks. A being who attains arahantship/enlightenment/perfection is beyond such a conception of any caste and is higher than non-arahants regardless.
Since the number of past existences is countless we've all experienced higher and lower existences many times before:

"When you see someone in a sorry state, in distress, you should
  conclude: ‘In all this long time, we too have undergone the same
  thing.’ Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is
  quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
  regarding all conditions." (SN 15.11)
"When you see someone in a good way, in a happy state, you should
  conclude: ‘In all this long time, we too have undergone the same
  thing.’ Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is
  quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
  regarding all conditions." (SN 15.12)


text:
Is ending up in hell at some point in time inevitable for those beings who are not Stream-Entrants?
I have seen this a few times in various places, although I haven't read it in any suttas, but I am guessing there might be some that talk about this.

The 4th jhāna brahma and above have a long enough age to meet more than 1 buddha, they are not going to hell until they die. So buddha can't say "If you do not enlighten by my teaching, you are going to hell soon".
However, most being are going to hell, included dead brahma, by Sutta. Saṃ. Ma. Āmakadhaññapeyyāle:

"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in the
  animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.
... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in
  the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.
... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the deva realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the deva realm, are reborn in hell... in the
  animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.
... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the deva realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the deva realm, are reborn in hell...
  in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
  the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
  duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of stress.'"

Hurry up.

Very good quote! These suttas also say "animals" (such as Angulimala) can realise the Four Noble Truths; such as in this video made in Thailand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNzrKAzxipY

Why hurry up? The more you hurry, the more you crave. Seeing the four noble truths should happen in a moment.

@Dhammadhatu the buddha said "When you’ve gained the human state, and the true teaching has been proclaimed, if you don’t seize the moment, it’ll pass you by."

Another the buddha said that many people have to use more than a moment to practice: "Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return."

@Dhammadhatu So, why you try to lie us about the real tipitaka? Why Tipitaka say " more than a moment" but you say "in a moment". Why Buddha cheer us to practice hard, but you deny us to hurry to practice? Why you try to cut some part of Tipitaka off and distort it?

Sorry but practise in described in MN 131. It does not hurry. It is in the present moment.  Also, practise has Noble Fruit - the realisation of emptiness (sunnata).

It is right to say "the buddha teach to practice at every moment", but it is wrong to say "practice at every moment can't call 'hurry up'". When one wastes the moments to chatter, we call him "he hesitates". And when that one changes his behaviour to do all moments for achieving the objective, we call him "he hurry up".

How is angulimala an animal? He was born in the human realm

@Dhammadhatu Vinaya Pitaka denies ordaining of an animal ‘Let an animal, O bhikkhus, that has not received the upasampadā ordination, not receive it; if it has received it, let it be expelled (from the fraternity).’ Angulimala was a human, so he could ordain as a monk at the end of MN Aṅgulimālasuttaṃ.

What it says is there is assurance no hell for the stream entrants.

I wouldn't say that everyone who hadn't reached the stream is destined for the hell realm. The determinants for one entering the hell realm lie in the mechanism of karma or the actions one performs.
One might find insight to the hell realm by discerning one's own changing psychological states throughout ones lifetime.
As for the hell realm beyond ones current physical form, I haven't a clue but if you can see it in situations of your current life and in others lives one can deduce that the karmic thought stream continues on through into another six sense doors. Likewise for good karma.

.. Perception of ideas is inconstant, changeable, alterable. One who has conviction & belief ... one who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment... one who knows and sees ...

There are/doing 3 kinds of people  who by certain qualities are no more capable to fall into lower states , not only those having reached the path by seeing for themselves.
Entering
-  The Eye
- Forms
- ...
- Properties
- Aggregates
[Note: this gift is not thought for any commercial purpose, trade, stake and exchange for wordily gain as well not for inattentive people who just seek for entertainment]

there is a famous sutta where an actor loved his idea that he is a good person, as usual with puthujjanas, they always build a view where entertainment is beneficial to people, where sensual pleasures, delight, enjoyment are skillful, whereas the buddha spend his time stating the opposite

"Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me
  in such a way? Worthless man, haven't I in many ways described
  obstructive acts? And when indulged in they are genuine obstructions.
  I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much
  stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual
  pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater
  drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a
  grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods...
  the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords
  and spears... a snake's head: of much stress, much despair, & greater
  drawbacks. But you, worthless man, through your own wrong grasp [of
  the Dhamma], have both misrepresented us as well as injuring yourself
  and accumulating much demerit for yourself, for that will lead to your
  long-term harm & suffering."[2]
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

then the buddha states

Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell
  you: either hell or the animal womb."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.002.than.html
Of course, puthujjanas can go to numerous higher realms before going to ''either hell or the animal womb'', like the puthujjanas who do only metta,
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html
But puthujjanas who practice metta, karuna, and so on after avoiding  being intoxicated & heedless manage to stop rebirth in some higher realm.
The Pratice of sense restrain plus the 4 metta, karuna , mudita, uppeka is the slowest path, since rebirth is not stopped ''in this very life'', but only in the next one.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html
as usual, wrong view springs from clinging to the five aggregates.

MN 117 says there is two sorts of right view: (i) Noble and (ii) ordinary.
In ordinary right view, those who follow the five precepts and ten wholesome actions will not be reborn in hell. For example:

As a result of being endowed with these ten courses of skillful action, [rebirth among] the devas is declared, [rebirth among] human
  beings is declared — that or any other good destination.
AN 10.176

But in Noble Right View, only those who realise the Four Noble Truths will not be reborn in hell.

… the sentient beings who die as humans and are reborn as humans are few, while those who die as humans and are reborn in hell are many …
Why is that?
It’s because they haven’t seen the four noble truths.
SN 56.102

The Buddha provided different teachings for different people. Per MN 117, the doctrine of "kamma & rebirth" is not for those seeking the Noble Path (of abandoning self-views) and is not a factor of the Noble Path. Its mostly for householders, as follows:

The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:
(i) they restrain him from evil, (ii) they persuade him to do good,
  (iii) they love him with a kind heart, (iv) they make him hear what he
  has not heard, (v) they clarify what he has already heard, (vi) they
  point out the path to a heavenly state.
DN 31