text:
Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?
It looks like a loop. We know desires cause us suffering, however the desire to abandon desire looks like a desire too, right?
I'm sure there is a trick, something to explain why it is different, so... who can help?

Please also see answers to https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8776/stopping-tanha-or-craving

You are right, its a trick. A trick played by your own mind. So, what are you trying to accomplish?

Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?
Yes, it is. A wholesome one that ends when you reach the 'park':

...
  "If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one
  with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by
  means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as
  you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire,
  thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park,
  wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
  and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence
  allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
  and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent
  allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go
  to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that
  particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has
  reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the
  true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is
  released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an
  endless path, or one with an end?"
"You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an
  endless one."
  ...
-SN 51.15, To Unnabha the Brahman

You might also want to read AN 4.159 which also touches on this theme and is an interesting read.

It's kinda simple. The desire to abandon desires also causes suffering. But it is a good kind of suffering, the suffering of growth, the suffering that burns away other suffering, like fasting. So first we abandon desires. Only then we abandon the desire to give up desires.
Although if you want to be precise, it's not desires that cause suffering, it's attachments (as in your tag). Desire is like: "I want this toy". Attachment is like "I highly respect expertise and clarity and can't stand it when people don't know what they are talking about". See the difference?
But let me ask you this question:
Do you really want to abandon desires/attachments? Or do you only want it because it will help you get something else? Ask yourself sincerely: "What do I want? What do I really want? What do I really-really want?" Keep asking until you get to the root. My teacher gave this to us as a kind of koan.

+1 for your first paragraph, but when you say "first" and "only then" that implies they're separate events in time. There may be two different answers on two times-scales: in the short term, i.e. in this instance/instant, they are both types of "desire" and must both be abandoned simultaneously; but in the longer term, it's as you said (and as said in what Unrul3r quoted).

Of course they are separate events in time. As per the traditional instruction, you should not leave the raft until you are safely on the other shore. My point was, it is only a paradox in theory, when we try to build a CSP (constraint satisfaction problem) model in our mind. Men are known to be fond of building pale lifeless logical models of reality. But once we get to real kitchen-level practice, to action -- there is no paradox.

I'm going to tackle this question from a few different angles.
First, is it desire or clinging to desire that causes suffering?  If it's clinging to desire, then it's possible to not cling to a desire to not cling to desire.  No problem there.
However, what if desire is the problem -- what then?
Is this "paradox" just a verbal game?  Doesn't the desire to end desires automatically exclude the desire to end desires as one of the desires to be ended?  Even if it didn't, once the other desires ended, wouldn't the desire to end desire end as well? Why would that desire still be active if I ended all my other desires?  Does it make sense to say I have a desire to end desires when I have no other desires?
So really, isn't the goal the desire to remove all other desires -- which is not paradoxical?  But assuming this isn't so, where does this leave me?
Can I gradually benefit from the path? If so, then it doesn't matter if there's a left-over desire, because I am still much better off.  At this point, the question becomes equivalent to worrying about whether I'll get $99 or $100 -- it's such a trivial thing, it doesn't matter.
Also, why do desires cause suffering?  Because..

They can be thwarted
The object of the desire can be lost
I worry about 1 & 2

1-3 are largely a function of how much the object of my desires is out of my hands. Well, isn't the desire to remove desire more in my hands than anything else?  If so, then it would seem that it's much less susceptible to 1-3 than other desires.  So it seems this is a relatively innocuous desire, and to the extent that it supersedes or replaces other desires, is a good thing to have.
A version of this question made up the bulk of Archie Bahm's "Philosophy of the Buddha".  He wrote of desiring that which would not be attained, then took the "desiring to stop this desiring more than that stopping will be attained" head-on, deriving (his interpretation of?) The Middle Way as the result of this apparent paradox.
Finally, why does this question matter?  At worst, it's not a real problem, just a play on words. At best, it's a trivial matter that's not worth worrying about.  Yet if it still seems important, then maybe it's a sign of clinging to concepts, of reifying, of taking either/or distinctions too seriously. If so, then that clinging is the real problem, one that will cause pain, so energy is better spent addressing that, rather than worrying about the possible ramifications of a possible minor residual desire.
Put another way, the question itself may be a symptom of clinging :)

This question or thought trips people up often. The key here is to practice the middle path, that is to neither attach nor avoid your desires. Desire is not inherently suffering.
Suffering, like all things, comes together dependent on causes and conditions. When desire is combined with either attachment or aversion, suffering is caused.

+1 for all those sentences except "Desire is not inherently suffering" which I'm not sure is true. That might (I don't know) be the kind of topic which people find debatable ... it's certainly one that I find questionable (silly me).

Thank you for your praise. If suffering were inherent in desire, that would mean that the essence of desire is suffering. Essence is untenable in the school that I follow, which is the middle way. The emptiness of suffering specifically I believe is analyzed in the apex of the MMK (last third). I don't pretend to know everything in the vast expanse of Buddhism, there could be a school who disagrees with what I've said. Feel free to disagree openly. I enjoy discussion. Have a wonderful day.

I suppose you're right. I misunderstood "is inherently": I [mis]interpreted it as "co-arises with" or "causes", and so I thought that sentence contradicted the second noble truth.

I was wondering the same issue.
Please note, I write from an Zen viewpoint. I am no teacher, nor enlightened or anything. This is just my personal view, coined by my school: Soto-Shu in the line of Deshimaru.
If you do zazen, do zazen. That is all there is. If you do zazen in order to overcome your desires, to become a better person, to become enlightened, whatgotcha.. you will fail. If you do so, you are still attached to desires and concepts (I am, for sure).
Thereore, you can only practice for the sake of practice. This is called muhotoku, translating to without a goal or with no profit. You do zazen, because you do zazen. And that's all there is, shikantaza, just sitting.
I even raise the stake: There is no satori to achive, no samadhi, no big transformation, no hammer of enlightment the ends all your suffering with one blow. Nothing like that when you are away from shikantaza and zazen, and while you do zazen, you have reached satori already and your suffering stops.
To be fair, there is a loop. Everybody starts something new, because of goals and desires. Someone has noticed, he is suffering (Every fullfilled wish isn't enough.). Naturally he looks for a way to stop suffering(I stop wishing now!). He may start to go the zen-way (Buddha said, that will stop suffering.). If he does so, in order to stop his suffering, he will notice, the suffering does not simply stop (I'm still suffering!? Even my legs are suffering, and my back!). This perception causes even more suffering (Not even this works, Buddha was a liar!).
But if he manages to stay on track and continues his practice, he might notice his attachment and entanglement with the world. He might percept, how this causes his suffering. He might be able to reduce the entanglement. On the other side, he might notice, how the world stops, while he sits, how the loud and busy world isn't so exciting any more.
This comes not easy and is a hard way to learn. But it comes naturally. It can't be pressed, it can't be explained. A step at a time. The important point is, it can't be pressed. The wish to achieve it (at best now and not somewhere in the future) tries to press it. It is human to have he wish, but it cause suffering, no more or less, then every other wish.
If one could let got that desire, but continues to go the path (mushotoku), one will be a Buddha, sitting zazen, not suffering, shikantaza. Gazing the moon.
Edit:
Just one more thought: For me there is a difference in "overcome desire" and "have no desire". Since English is not my native language, it's hard for me to explain. But it boils down to something like this: I will still have desires, I will still be entangled with the world, I will still be attached, but it will not dictate my life or who or how I am. I will see the mechanisms, know how they work and life with them.
Nothing, not even desires, attachment or entanglement is inherent evil. There is no such thing as inherent evil. It's our behaviour towards those things, that let us suffer.

Liking is different than needing.
Believe it or not, this is all there is to it, but has to be directly known. If you understand the concept, it will dispell the contradiction.

Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?
Yes, certainly. That desire is what causes one to give up.
If I use the term Tanha for desire, then Tanha is the cause of existence.
Tanha is eradicated only reaching the statuse of Arahant.


text:
English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Perhaps this should be closed as a 'shopping' question, but maybe translations take a long time to make and therefore there are not too many of them, and they don't go out of date quickly.
The English texts I use seem unreliable. For example:

One book I have (using a 1925 CE translation) has a translation which (because it uses an abstract noun "the lovely") I had thoroughly failed to understand.
In that case, the 'Access to Insight' translation was clearer (using concrete nouns like 'with people' and 'with friends' instead of abstractions like "with what is lovely").
So I have been using Access to Insight.
However when I wanted the Samuddo Sutta, the Access to Insight version is (in my opinion) relatively very inadequate compared to this Buddha Vacana version.

I only found these using Google, i.e. I have no expertise about what translations exist.

Can you recommend any (single) specific translations?
Can you give any survey of what (many) is available?
Or should I ask about translators instead of translations (I'd prefer 'the best' translation rather than the 'historically-first' translation)?

Even if there are too many, are there great/classic resources that any Anglophone should know?

Printed books would be on-topic, though I'm warned that such things might be ten times the size of a bible.
Online or (at least) digital references might be convenient. For example the side-by-side (hyper-linkable) translation feature found on the Buddha Vacana site helped me understand (by linking to the Pali word) what it meant when it said "mental phenomena".
A resource for any European language (English, French, German, etc) would be interesting
Google Translate doesn't do Pali or Sanskrit, but if there's a (free or affordable) semi-competent machine-based translator (accurate although not poetic or idiomatic), that might be good (though it may be hoping too much, to hope for the existence of such a thing yet).

I personally use the following translations:

Paper copies of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations of Nikayas (for example Majjhima) for nice smooth English rendition.
Access To Insight for quick and convenient search.
Dharmafarer for in-depth analysis.

When in doubt, I do my own translation with a dictionary (Sanskrit, Pali, I also use a number of Pali-Russian dictionaries). For this, Sutta Central is a good source of well-formatted Pali texts (it also has translations but I don't like their renditions).

If I want to compare several English translations I go to Obo:
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
If A is killed by B due to A's past karma of killing B, will B suffer from this karma of killing A?
I am trying to deepen my understanding of the law of karma. Let's say:

A killed B.
B killed A in next life.

Is this particular karma of A considered "completed", that B will not suffer since this is just the effect of A's karma?
Or does B still create new karma when killing A, and will suffer unwholesome result?

Killing someone is an act that is accomplished by many thought processes. A single thought process can have a maximum of 17 cittas. Among them, the cittas 9 to 15 are called the Javana cittas. They are the ones responsible for creating Karma.

 Thought-Process
1. The subject, the consciousness, receives objects from within and without. When a person is in a state of profound sleep his mind is
  said to be vacant, or, in other words, in a state of bhavanga. We
  always experience such a passive state when our minds do not respond
  to external objects. This flow of bhavanga is interrupted when objects
  enter the mind.
2. Then the bhavanga consciousness vibrates for one
  thought-moment and passes away.
3. A bhavanga that cuts off the flow (bhavanga upaccheda).
4. Thereupon the sense-door consciousness (pañca-dvārāvajjana)
  arises and ceases. At this stage the natural flow is checked and is
  turned towards the object.
5. Immediately after there arises and ceases the eye consciousness* (cakkhu viññāna), but yet knows no more about it.
6. This sense operation is followed by a moment of reception of the object so seen (sampaticchana).
7. Next comes the investigating faculty (santīrana) or a momentary examination of the object so received.
8. After this comes that stage of representative cognition termed the determining consciousness (votthapana). Discrimination is
  exercised at this stage. Free Will plays its part here.
9 to 15.  Immediately after there arises the psychologically most important stage - Impulsion or javana. It is at this stage that an
  action is judged whether moral or immoral. Kamma is performed at this
  stage; if viewed rightly (yoniso manasikāra), the javana becomes
  moral; if viewed wrongly (ayoniso manasikāra), it becomes immoral. In
  the case of an Arahat this javana is neither moral nor immoral, but
  merely functional (kiriya). This javana stage usually lasts for seven
  thought moments, or, at times of death, five.
16 to 17. The whole process which happens in an infinitesimal part of time ends with the registering consciousness (tadālambana), lasting
  for two thought-moments - thus completing one thought-process at the
  expiration of seventeen thought-moments.

Each of the Javana Cittas are Karmically potent. They come into fruitions at different times.
1. Immediately effective kamma (dittha-dhamma-vedaniya kamma)

kamma which produces its results in the present life.

Among the seven javana cittas, the first, or the weakest javana-citta called the dittha-dhamma-vedaniya - produces its effects in the present life. Because it's the weakest kamma, it is unable to produce results past the current life.
If this kamma is performed in this present life and does meet the opportunity to ripen , it will give the result in the same existence. Otherwise, the effect becomes defunct.
2. Subsequently effective kamma (upapajja-vedaniya kamma )

kamma which produces its effects in the nearest next life.

Among the seven javana process, this is the seventh one.The second weakest of the javana cittas, - called upapajja-vedaniya kamma.
3. indefinitely effective kamma  ( aparā-pariya-vedaniya kamma)

kamma which produces its effects in lives subsequent to nearest next life.

It can ripen at any time whenever it has opportunity to produce the results from the second future existence onwards as long as the round of rebirths continues. It never becomes defunct until it comes to fruition.
4. defunct  kamma (ahosi kamma)

kamma which is ineffective.

The kamma that is unable to produce its results are called ahosi-kamma.
If immediately effective kamma (dittha-dhamma-vedaniya kamma), for example, is unable to operate in this life, and if the subsequently effective kamma (upapajja-vedaniya kamma) does not operated in the second birth or next life, they are ahosi-kamma.
In the case of Arahants, all their accumulated good or bad kamma from the past which was due to ripen in the future lives become defunct with their enlightenment.

Since killing a person involves so many thought processes, it doesn't end just because the Karma of one of the Javana cittas of one thought process comes into fruition. Chances are that one is going to pay for the Javana cittas in the multitudes of thought processes involved with the killing, from time to time in Samsara. So getting killed once in a future life is not likely to complete all results of the Karmas one accumulates in an act of killing.
If person B kills person A in next life, it won't be a new karma for person A as the fruit is never a Karma. However it will become a new Karma for person B. Because B is not the one facing the result. He's a different person creating a fresh Karma.

Thanks, and that's an interesting site: http://www.lawsofthenature.com

@Sankha Kulathantile, has given an answer. Let me try to explain from the point of view of daily meditative practice.

Firstly the theory behind my answer. Budhha never taught the rule of Kamma. What he taught is Paticca Samuppada or the dependent origination. Here is a link wherein Late Ven. K Sri Dhammananda has explained it very beautifully...http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/English-Texts/Short-Pieces-in-English/Belief-Systems.htm
According to the theory of Dependent Origination, there are the six elements, the six spheres of contact, the eighteen investigations of mind and the four noble truths. The six elements are Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Space and Consciousness. The six spheres of contact are Eyes, Ears, Nose, Tongue, the Body and the Mind. Having taken birth, it is impossible to avoid contact between the spheres of contact and the six elements. Upon contact of the elements with each sphere of contact an experience is generated. Now, the mind will investigate if the experience is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Now since there are 6 spheres of contact, there will be 18 investigations of mind in total. Now the Buddha says that upon categorizing these experiences as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral we develop craving and clinging to these six elements which then leads to rebirth, thus putting in motion the Samsara.
Now upon contact with these elements if we watch the experiences objectively and see them as they are, as impermanent we become free from sufferings and thus set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma. In essence our ignorance (Avijja) is the root cause of all the sufferings. Thus upon contact with the six elements, it is our ignorance which makes us categorize the experience as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. But upon contact with the six elements if instead of categorizing the experience as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, we see them as impermanent, that ignorance is abandoned and we develop wisdom (Pannya).
Now coming back to your question, I will assume that in the 1st birth A do not know the Dhamma. Here it does not matter if B knows the Dhamma or not, since he/she is anyways having a rebirth. In the second birth/rebirth, I will assume that B does not know the Dhamma since he is committing a murder. Now, suppose in the second birth A knows the Dhamma. Thus on experiencing pain, he will not react to it as unpleasant but recognize its true nature i.e. impermanent and his kammic energies will dissipate and depending on the strength of his practice, he will be born in higher realms and A and B may never meet again. But suppose A too does not know the Dhamma, he too will keep on reacting and he will be reborn again. In the case of B he will also be reborn again. It is speculative if they will meet again.
Now I think, and this is my personal opinion, that if A does a wrong deed to B, it need not be B who will act in retribution in the future rebirth. Suppose, B is already an enlightened person, then A and B may not meet at all; A having rebirth and B being born in higher realms or attaining Nibbana depending on the level of his practice. Also it need not be the same wrong deed being done to A again. For e.g., if A has committed a murder, and in his rebirth A comes to know the Dhamma, then it is highly possible that the results of his past kamma will arise during his meditation practice and having overcome them the force of his past kamma will keep on reducing. Again this is very speculative. But the point here is We should keep practicing the Dhamma.
Also I am not suggesting that by just knowing the Dhamma, one will not do wrong deeds at all. One may know the Dhamma but not practice it at all and keep on reacting to the feelings which are generated upon contact with the six elements. So essentially Buddha laid a lot of emphasis on practice and it is evident in various of his teachings in Dhammapada and the Tipitaka

When you said Buddha never taught the rule of karma, did you mean Buddha never taught what Sankha Kulathantille put in his answer: thought-process and 4 kinds of karma?

The point I want to make here is that there may be kamma which are indefinitely effective or ineffective or whatever but what Buddha thought is we must be mindful every moment. So when the fruits od past kamma come, we don't react to it but rather stay mindful see its real nature and thus the kammic energies dissipate without reappearing again. Seeing true nature of our experiences reduces kammic energy of past kamma.

Thanks for your answer. Your point of view is inspiring.

A kills B, B kills A (in the next life), now we are all square is not how kamma works. Kamma is a complex subject, guesstimating its effects in detail is said to lead to futile mental fatigue.
One's thoughts and intentions matter.

A harms B on the spur of the moment argument.
B plots revenge for many years and exacts his revenge.

The quality of the person performing the act, and the quality of the person upon whom the act is performed also matters.
I recommend reading Ajhan Sucitto's book 'Kamma and the Ending of Kamma' to help in your understanding.

This book explores a range of ways in which the principle of kamma -
  of cause and effect - can be seen as underlying the Buddha's teaching
  in all aspects of life. Often seen as a teaching on morality, kamma
  has its most transformative fruition in meditation.

According to the Acintita Sutta, the precise working out of the result of karma is not to be conjectured about, otherwise it will bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not
  to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone
  who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them."

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


text:
Chronological or other sequence for beginners
At least one of the "introductions to Buddhism" that I read included elements from, some biography of, the life of the Buddha, including:

Early life
Searching for enlightenment
Sermon at Benares (a.k.a. "Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion")
Death (i.e. "Behold etc. ... Work out your end with diligence").

Is the Tipitaka arranged in useful sequence? I feel like I'm walking into a library, looking at the Dewey Decimal Classification and wondering which I should read first.
I take it that the Tipitaka is not chronological!
Am I right in think that the Dhammacakkappavattana is the first and most important sutta?
If so is it sensible that, there, it is "SN 56.11" (i.e. not the first sutta)?
What other "important" suttas should I read "first"?
Is more known about the sequence in which the Buddha himself delivered them (e.g. if the Sermon at Benares was the first, was the Fire Sermon the second, and which then was the third, etc.)?
Please answer any or all questions above.
Or you could answer this question by commenting on what it says at Which suttas should I read? Do you agree with what it says there, do you have anything to add to what it says there, or to take away?

Reading is the bad study system. Reading and translation make reader confuse and miss many important words. So I answered the ancient study system in this answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22938/10100

Am I right in thinking that the Dhammacakkappavattana is the first and most important sutta?
I wouldn't say most important but, taking into account other discourses, it seems it was the first discourse expounded by the Buddha.
If so, is it sensible that, there, it is "SN 56.11" (i.e. not the first sutta)?
It depends on how you'd want to organize the discourses. Since SN is organized thematically, this is one of the reasons for it being in the last section (SN 56).
What other "important" suttas should I read "first"?
I struggle with this question since there is a plethora of "important" or "good" discourses. Personally, I enjoy so many discourses in the canon that I've lost count. Nevertheless, here are some which I consider important (The subsequent bolded filtering are those discourses which I consider to be the core. I'd recommend reading all of them nonetheless):

Dīgha Nikāya: 1, 2, 9, 15, 16, 29
Majjhima Nikāya: 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 38, 43, 44, 47, 55, 58, 60, 61, 63, 66, 70, 72, 74, 82, 86, 88, 95, 96, 107, 108, 109, 117, 118, 121, 125, 136, 139, 141, 149, 150
Saṃyutta Nikāya: 12.2, 12.15, 12.17, 12.33, 12.34, 22.2, 22.59, 22.81, 22.85, 35.28, 35.116, 36.6, 36.7, 36.8, 36.11, 38.14, 41.6, 45.8, 46.51, 46.55, 47.10, 47.19, 48.42, 51.15, 55.7, 56.11
Aṅguttara Nikāya: I'd recommend looking at Bhikkhu Bodhi's Thematic Guide and reading the discourses by whatever topic interests you. A discourse that usually stands out in this nikāya is AN 3.65. (I also like 3.61, 3.68 & 3.69)
Khuddaka Nikāya: I recommend reading fully the Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Sutta Nipāta, Theragāthā & Therīgāthā. They are small and easy to read. If I had to choose one, I'd say the Sutta Nipāta.

Is more known about the sequence in which the Buddha himself delivered them (e.g. if the Sermon at Benares was the first, was the Fire Sermon the second, and which then was the third, etc.)?
These are the orders I've seen:

1. Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
2. Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta
3. Ādittapariyāya Sutta [Source]

1. Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
2. Hemavata Sutta
3. Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta [Source]
Can't recollect anything else regarding this topic.

That is a great and informative answer. Its much appreciated. Thank you.

Bhikkhu Bodhi has published an analogy of the Pali Canon called In the Buddha's Words which is arranged thematically. I found a very useful entry into the Pali Canon generally. The themes (and chapter headings) are

The Human Condition
The Bringer of Light
Approaching the Dharma
The Happiness Visible in the Present Lives
The Way to a Fortunate Rebirth
Deepening one's own Perspective on the world
The Path to Liberation
Mastering the Mind
Shining the Light of Wisdom
The Planes of Realisation

I found going through this gave me a good flavour of the Pali Canon.

I can highly recommend the anthology In the Buddha's words. In my opinion it is the best Sutta anthology of its size there is. If I spoke someone who didn't know anything about the canonical Suttas and wanted a place to start, I would immediately recommend that they get In the Buddha's Words.

+1 as a great and gentle place to start and have a sense of, not only, the whole universe and vocabulary, but to get familiarized with the sutta styles. Then, a first read of the Nikayas is just straightforward (also, the recent available translations have a lot of helpful background, notes and introductory chapters).

Please see this answer for the Preface of this book, which tells you the author's intention to make this book a map to guide the reader through the jungle of the suttas.

I really like Dharmafarer's Sutta Discovery series. It is free and available online as downloadable/printable PDFs. It introduces suttas in a nice sequence, not necessarily strictly chronological, but organized in a meaningful progression (starting with the Dhammacakkappavattana sutta!).

The Sutta Pitaka is the part of the Tipitaka that would be of most interest to laypersons practicing meditation. (The others are the Vinaya Pitaka, the rules for monks, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka, a more metaphysical compilation).
But to answer your question, the sections in the Sutta Pitaka are organized by the length of the suttas therein:

The first section, Digha Nikaya, contains long suttas.
The second section, Majjhima Nikaya, contains middle-length suttas.
The Samyutta Nikaya contains shorter suttas and are grouped by topic.
The Anguttara Nikaya is grouped into the book of the ones, book of the twos, etc. (so that if you're looking for a list of five things, you can check the book of the fives).
The Khuddaka Nikaya is a collection of various books, including the well-known Dhammapada, and (in some versions of the Tipitaka) the Questions of King Milinda.

One particular place I remember from going there repeatedly is the Mangala Sutta, or Discourse on Blessings. It's in: Khuddaka Nikaya > Sutta Nipata >  Culavagga > 4th sutta.
This is just a quick summary gleaned off accesstoinsight.org. The website explains in further detail.

Arranging them by length seems the least useful way to organize them, unless you're physically sorting scrolls into baskets.

Actually I find the scheme useful: If I feel like spending a long time reading suttas, I'll open DN or MN, and if I feel like spending a shorter time, I'll open the other sections. But to be fair if you don't know what you're looking for, this scheme doesn't help a lot. That's why I like that ATI lets you search by subject, name, and various other keys.

Someone posted this comment, in another topic, ...

Only a handful of core sutta is enough for enlightenment. MN 117; SN 56.11; SN 22.59; SN 22.79; SN 23.2; SN 5.10; MN 9; MN 61; DN 31; SN 55.7; AN 4.55; MN 118; MN 38; MN 37; Iti 44; Iti 49; MN 149; SN 22.53; MN 115; SN 22.81; SN 22.48 is enough.

... which I thought could be an answer to this question. So here they are, with my summary of each:
MN 117 -- "The Great Forty" -- Introduces the factors of the noble eightfold path: for example "right view", both "affected by taints" and "supramundane"; and connections between them, for example between "view" and "effort" and "mindfulness".
SN 56.11 -- "Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dhamma" -- Introduces the middle way, and the four noble truths; and a statement that the four truths are to be understood, abandoned, realized, and developed.
SN 22.59 -- "The Characteristic of Nonself" -- Explains that if the five aggregates were self, then they would not lead to affliction and would be under our control; and that the five aggregates are impermanent and suffering, and not fit to be regarded as self, and should be viewed as ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self"; so the noble disciples experience revulsion towards the aggregates, thus becomes dispassionate, thus [his mind] is liberated.
SN 22.79 -- "Being Devoured" -- Describes what each of the five aggregates are; explains how to reflect that "I am now being devoured by" each aggregate, and to become indifferent towards the past, not seek delight in the future, and practice for revulsion towards the present, for its fading away and cessation; and says that this is called "dismantles and does not build up", "abandons and does not cling", "scatters and does not amass", "extinguishes and does not kindle".
SN 23.2 -- "Satta Sutta: A Being" -- Says that there is "a being" whenever there is passion, delight, or craving for any of the five aggregates; and that you should smash and scatter them and make them unfit for play, like children do with little sandcastles which they stop wanting to play with.
SN 5.10 -- "Vajira" -- Tells of speculative questions attributed to Mara, "By whom has this being been created?" etc.; and the bhikkhuni Vajira's reply (in verse), starting with "why assume 'a being'?" and ending "it's only suffering that arises and stands and ceases".
MN 9 -- "Right View" -- Explains in what way[s] a noble disciple is of right view: "unwholesome" is defined by the four precepts and the three poisons, the three poisons are the root of the unwholesome, the opposite is wholesome, the noble disciple abandons the roots and the "I am" conceit; the noble disciple understands four types of nutriment -- food (for form), contact (for feeling), mental volition (for consciousness), and consciousness (for name-and-form) -- that the nutriment arise and cease with the arising and cessation of craving, and that the noble eightfold path is the way leading to the cessation of nutriment; understands the four noble truths; and understands each of the twelve links of dependent origination, with the origin and cessation of each; and understands the three taints (asavas); and abolishes the three poisons and the "I am" conceit.
MN 61 -- "Discourse on an Exhortation to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhikā" -- Those who have no shame at intentional lying have no recluseship; reflect on a deed, when you desire (or intend) to do it, when you do it, and after you have done it; reflect on whether it harms self or others, whether it's unskilled and yields anguish, or skilled and yields happiness; for three types of deeds, i.e. bodily deeds, mental deeds, and verbal deeds; repeated reflection is the only way to purify a deed, and is how you must train yourself.
DN 31 -- "The Buddha’s Advice to Sigālaka" -- Advice to a layperson: abandon four impure actions (i.e. keep the four precepts) -- the four harmful deeds having four roots, i.e. the three poisons plus fear; avoid squandering wealth in six ways (intoxication, partying, bad companions, etc.), and six dangers (e.g. "friends and colleagues display their contempt", etc.) associated with each of these six ways; beware of four types of enemy disguised as friend (taker, talker, flatterer, and reckless companion), and be aware of four good-hearted friends (helper, constant, mentor, and compassionate), and the four things by which to identify each of these types; and protect "the six directions" (parents, teachers, family, friends and colleagues, workers and servants, ascetics and Brahmins), each in five ways.
SN 55.7 -- "The Discourse to the People of Bamboo Gate" -- Respect the four precepts and teach them to others, after reflecting on the golden rule; factors conducive to streamwinning are wise faith in each jewel of the triple gem, and accomplished moral virtue leading to mental concentration; the benefits of streamwinning are that if he wishes he could declare of himself that birth in the lower realms is destroyed for him.
AN 4.55 -- "The Same in Living" -- A householder and housewife tell the Buddha that, since being given to each other in marriage they do not recall ever transgressing against each even in thought, much less by deed, and that they want to see each other in future lives; the Buddha replies that to see one another in future lives, they they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity, and the same wisdom.
MN 118 -- "Mindfulness with Breathing" -- An introductory description of the sangha; describes what to be mindful when breathing (breathing in and out, long and short, experiencing & tranquilizing the bodily conditioner (the breathing), rapture, pleasure, experiencing & tranquilizing the mind conditioner (how rapture & happiness condition the mind), the mind, gladdening the mind, concentrating the mind, liberating the mind, impermanence, fading away, cessation, relinquishment); lists the four establishments of mindfulness (contemplating the body as a body, feelings as feelings, mind as mind, and while contemplating impermanence mind-objects and mind-objects -- ardent, mindful, putting away grief and covetousness, looking on with equanimity); lists the seven enlightenment factors (1 abiding contemplating the body as a body establishes mindfulness, 2 abiding mindful arouses investigation-of-states, 3 investigation arouses tireless energy, 4 with aroused energy arises unworldly rapture, 5 with rapture the body and mind become tranquil, 6 with bodily tranquility and pleasure the mind is concentrated, 7 looking with equanimity at the concentrated mind and abiding contemplating the four foundations of mindfulness arouses equanimity); and the seven enlightenment factors, when supported by seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, ripen in relinquishment -- that's how they are developed and cultivated, and fulfil true knowledge and deliverance.
MN 38 -- "The Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving" -- The Buddha reproves a bhikkhu named Sāti for holding a pernicious view, that the Dhamma teaches that "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another"; consciousness depends on the six senses, and is reckoned as "eye-consciousness" etc.; consciousness is like fire, named after what feeds it (e.g. "grass-fire" etc.); things that are conditional on nutriment end when the nutriment is ended; the parable of the raft compares the Dharma to a raft for the purpose of crossing over, not to be an object of greed and treated as a possession; there are four kinds of nutriment (also mentioned in MN 9 above); a listing of the twelve nidānas, and how they condition each others' arising and cessation; knowing and seeing in this way, the bhikkhus wouldn't ask the unanswered questions (have speculative doubts) about self, past, future, and present -- nor follow the Teacher from respect, nor acknowledge other teachers -- the Dhamma is to be experienced by the wise for themselves; the round of existence, conception to maturity, is that the embryo descends if several conditions occur, is carried in the womb, is born, is nourished, plays, enjoys the five cords of sensual pleasure; the continuation of the round is that he lusts after a form if it is pleasing, or dislikes it if it is unpleasing, doesn't abide with mindfulness of the body established, doesn't understand deliverance of the mind by wisdom wherein evil unwholesome states cease without remainder, delights in feelings which results in clinging, from which comes being, birth, ageing and death, sorrow, such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering; ending the round (gradual training) is that a Tathagata appears and teaches the Dhamma, the householder hears, gains conviction, and goes forth into homelessness, keeps the 10 precepts, abstains from wrong livelihood, is content with the necessities and being blameless, practices sense-restraint, makes himself alert, seeks a secluded place, abandons the hindrances, and enters and remains in the four jhānas; ending the round (full cessation) is that whatever he senses he does not lust after it if it's pleasing nor dislike it if it isn't, whatever he feels he does not delight in the feeling, nor welcome it or remain attached to it, so delight in feelings cease, so cessation of clinging, being, birth, ageing and death, etc.
MN 37 -- "Lesser Discourse on the Destruction of Craving" -- ???
Iti 44 -- "The Nibbāna-element" -- The Nibbāna-element with residue is when the five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which the aharant still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain -- but hate, attachment, and delusion are extinct; and the Nibbāna-element without residue, when the arahant is completely released trough final knowledge.
Iti 49 -- "Held by Views" -- Some are held back and some overreach, and only those with vision see: some are held back, delighting in being, when Dharma is taught for cessation of being, their minds don't enter or acquire confidence or settle or become resolved on it; some overreach when, disgusted by being, they rejoice in non-being and assert that the self perishes with the body at death, and that this is peaceful and excellent; those with vision see, who practice for the ending of what has come to be, so that being isn't renewed.
MN 149 -- "The Great Sixfold Base" -- ...
SN 22.53 -- "Engagement" -- Engaged is unliberated and disengaged is liberated; consciousness is engaged with the five aggregates; if a bhikkhu abandons lust for the aggregates then there is no support for the establishing of consciousness; when consciousness is unestablished, it is liberated, therefore steady, therefore content, therefore not agitated, so he attains Nibbana.
MN 115 -- "The Discourse on Many Elements" -- ...
SN 22.81 -- "Connected Discourses on the Aggregates" -- ...
SN 22.48 -- "Aggregates" -- Describes the aggregates and "the aggregates subject to clinging": for example, any kind of form (past, present, future, internal or external, gross or subtle, far or near) is called the form aggregate; and any kind of form that is tainted, that can be clung to, is called the form aggregate subject to clinging.

Claiming some sutta as "core" in order to disparage others is dogmatic Buddhism and inflicts serious error.

Are there (more specifically) some sets of others which you would recommend? Or, any specific sequence[s] in which you recommend that a beginner read them all?

Chronological or other sequence for beginners

'Beginners' can be a problematic word because there are two types of beginners, namely:

Beginners to religion & morality (sila)
Beginners to the noble path of enlightenment.

Beginners to the noble path start with the Dhammacakkappavattana.
In contrast, sequences that monks often teach to the common person are generally for beginners to morality, following the common formula of 'sila-samadhi-panna', such as found in detail in the Maha-mangala Sutta or in the following from MN 56, which begin with basic morality & end with the Four Noble Truths:

Then the Blessed One discoursed to him a graduated sermon, that is to say, he spoke on the subjects of generosity, virtue, the heavens, on
  the evil consequences, the vanity and the depravity of sensual
  pleasures and on the advantages of renunciation.
When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of Upāli, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from hindrances, elevated and
  lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted doctrine of the Buddhas,
  viz. Suffering, its Cause, its Ceasing and the Path.
MN 56

Due to DN 31 teaching the duty of a monk is to teach lay people the path to heaven (worldly happiness) rather than the path to Nibbana, there are two sequences in Buddhism.

Am I right in think that the Dhammacakkappavattana is the first and most important sutta?

Yes, it is the most important sutta because it represents the core message of dukkha & no dukkha (MN 22); the 'Handful of Leaves'  (SN 56.31); & the 'Special Unique Teaching' (MN 56) the Buddha declared only he taught. While the 2nd sutta SN 22.59 about the 3 characteristics is more profound & has more path efficacy, both SN 56.11 & SN 22.59 share the same goal, namely, explaining wrong view vs right view and leading to the end of suffering.

What other "important" suttas should I read "first"?

SN 22.59 and SN 35.28, which, together with SN 56.11, make up the first three sermons. And also SN 45.8, which explains the details of the 4th noble truth.

Is more known about the sequence in which the Buddha himself delivered them (e.g. if the Sermon at Benares was the first, was the
  Fire Sermon the second, and which then was the third, etc.)?

SN 22.59 was the 2nd; the Fire Sermon was the 3rd. What should be highlighted about the first 3 sermons is they are supramundane (lokuttara) or higher wisdom (adhipaññā) for the purpose of enlightenment & Nibbana of monks. They are not moral teachings for the common lay person. Thus, the first 3 sermons represent the most extreme of 'Hinayana'.

Or you could answer this question by commenting on what it says at Which suttas should I read? Do you agree with what it says there, do
  you have anything to add to what it says there, or to take away?

MN 117 distinguishes between between 'mundane' & supramundane right view. Thus there are mundane teachings which are about morality & skillful means for laypeople (eg. SN 55.7; DN 31; AN 4.55, etc). Therefore, there can be a different sequence, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi has attempted with 'In The Buddha's Words' book, which moves from mundane to supramundane. While this is more 'Mahayana' (broader), it certainly can create lots of confusion for students & scholars, because the mundane teachings often get imputed upon the supramundane, such as the numerous mundane corruptions of the supramundane Dependent Origination.
Thus, MN 117 is a very important sutta. While some speculative scholars have possibly argued correctly MN 117 was not spoken by the Buddha, MN 117 was certainly spoken by an arahant and was spoken to mitigate confusion between the mundane & supramundane.

Another handy sequence are the suttas taught to Rahula (MN 61; MN 62; MN 147).

This answer is missing the Fire Sermon -- perhaps I should add it there.

As to whether Dhammacakkappavattana is the first or most important, scholars have made it plain that our reconstruction of events does not allow us to conclude that the narration of the biography of the Buddha Gautama or a specified priority outside of traditional context will hold unchallenged by sound reason.
Perhaps the most important of sutras otherwise which you might consider, or ask your teachers about, would be the Kalama Sutra, which is called the Buddha's "Charter of Free Inquiry", as it allows a balanced approach to all other sutras going forward, both inside and outside of the sangha.

The Access To Insight (ATI) website has "study guides" or thematic anthologies of the suttas, which come with commentaries also. Many of them of have embedded links to the full suttas.
The Befriending the Suttas page has a nice section called Which suttas should I read?
The main self-guided tour is the Path To Freedom which has:

Chronological sutta readings on the Buddha's life
Overview of the dhamma (teachings) of the Buddha from the suttas
Overview of the sangha from the suttas

Here is a list of study guides. For e.g. one of the study guides is the five aggregates.
ATI also has a General Index, which list subjects from A to Z. There are also other indexes based on Author, Proper Names, Number, Similes, Suttas and Title.


text:
Rebirth versus genetic recombination
Humans like nearly all other species have their genetic base as a mixture 50:50 from the genes of their father and from the genes of their mother. Each generation represents a new combination of genes from the gene pool of the species. The genetic basis determines to a large amount who we are.
Does this fact contradict the rebirth of individuals?

Are you defining rebirth as "rebirth of the same genes"? Are two identical twins the same person, or, two different people? As for "who we are", isn't that defined by kamma and/or by dependent origination? Doesn't non-self (anatta) imply that "I am not my genes"? When you say "the rebirth of individuals", where is that phrase (and especially the term, "individuals") defined?

Question 1: I do not define rebirth as rebirth of the same genes. I define rebirth as rebirth of the same person. But genes determine the scope of a person's potential. Question 2: I consider two twins not identical, even in case they are monozygotic. Because each of both develops different I consider them two different persons. Question 3: The question "Who we are?" refers to a person's characteristics: How he/she introduces and describes him/herself. Would you please post your final questions as a separate question. Thank you

@jowehler, I suggest you ask following additional questions: "How is the notion of person or individual treated in Buddhism?" (pudgala) and "what is reborn?" (nama-rupa).

This goes back to an argument that was very popular in 19th century: "is person's character inborn or is it a result of upbringing?"...
What is meant by "rebirth" in Buddhism is rebirth of the state of mind. In modern terms we could say that the living brain is only a carrier. So where does our state of mind come from?
Once as I meditated, I realized that some of my typical thoughts came back from my childhood, from my parent's dysfunctional family situation. And the roots of that situation can be traced to my father's childhood, and probably beyond, to his father's life.
Not all of it is passed down the family lines either. Today at least some of my thoughts came from news I read online about the situation in Ukraine. Do you understand? Our state of mind at any moment consists of elements each of which came down a chain of interactions that can be traced back to beginningless times!
Our state of mind is not "one thing", not an entity, there is no "I".  The boundary between inner and outer is a fiction; there is an infinite sea of interacting mental and physical factors.
So why call it rebirth then? Because of appropriation. We appropriate a combination of traits as "I", "me", "mine". My country, my family, my childhood, my education, my believe, my values, my principles, my pride etc. Appropriation of these causes rebirth and suffering.

You define "rebirth := rebirth of state of mind". I think that's not common use of the concept of rebirth. Your concept of rebirth sounds like remembering a thought or reactivating an emotion or having the same thought like some other or having empathy towards others or feel like others felt before.

I believe that is the common use, at least in Mahayana.

Mahayana is a wide sphere ... Could you please name a reference. Thank you.

This is self-evident. Rebirth is not rebirth of body, right? Rebirth is not rebirth of soul, because in Buddhism there is no such entity as "soul" (or atman). Rebirth is not rebirth of "I", because in Buddhism there is none. Then what is reborn? The mind itself is not an entity, it does not have essence -- it is an ability to cognize. So the only thing that remains is the state of mind.

Andrei, we have a misunderstanding: I asked for a quote concerning your statement about  Mahayana. I did not ask for a chain of indirect reasoning. I would appreciate an explicit reference to a Mahayana text.  On the other hand, referrring to Theravada we have the Maha-sihanada Sutta (MN12). Here Buddha clearly names aspects and particulars of the past lives of a Tathagata like clan, appearance, nutriment, experience of pleasure and pain, life-term. In my opinion, these characteristics are not restricted to mind states.

When asked what is reborn, Chogyam Trungpa answered "neurosis". In Milindapanha (not Theravada, but an early text), Nagasena says "it's not getting transferred and yet incarnates ... like a poem you learned from your teacher's words" and "it is not this very namarupa that incarnates; with this namarupa performs a deed — whether good or wicked — and through this deed incarnates another namarupa". Even Theravada's Visuddhimagga says "elements of being ... arrive at a new existence: none transmigrated from the last existence, nor are they in the new existence without causes contained in the old"

Also, for Mahayana proper, check out Dogen's Bendowa. There he speaks at length about this so-called Srenika Heresy.

Andrei,
from Milindapanha I learn: “It is name (nama) and form (rupa) that is born into the next existence.” If I take nama-rupa as shorthand for the five aggregates then I have the whole person, not only her mental states (samskara).
Apparently one cannot sum up nama-rupa as neurosis like the quote from Chogyam Trungpa. But I can appreciate the joke. From a sociological point of view it contains a grain of truth – unfortunately.
From Dogen’s rejecting the “Srenika heresy” I do not conclude that he supports the view that mental states in separation are reborn.

True, namarupa is born (not "into the next existence" -- that's bad translation) -- but it's not the same namarupa. As per Milindapanha, the old namarupa dies, the new namarupa is born, and what connects the two is information and causal links. True, it's not just state of mind that is born, it is state of everything. But it is state nevertheless, not entity (like person). If ancients had concept of in-form-ation, they would say it is information that incarnates.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I was kind of confused and bewildered by the question but I think I understand what your getting at.
I'm sure you know that genes don't have minds to perform karmic intentions.  What genes a being is recombined with upon rebirth depends on the previous morality of the being  (according to the teachings of the Buddha). Of course on another level, what genes a being gets depends on mother and father's genes:
One person is born with genes that give them a body that stays fit no matter what they eat while another person gets an unfit body even though they exercise and eat all the right foods. The Buddha 's teaching here is more at the level of answering the question as to why one person seems naturally rewarded by the genes they were born with while the other seems cursed. So, if we are cursed in this life it is because of bad karma(bad moral action) we made in a past life and if we are blessed it is because of good karma(good moral action) we performed in a past life according to Buddhism.-hope this helps :)

Of course different people are born with different dispositions for diseases rooted in their genes. But if a person suffers a genetic defect, then I consider it an inhuman behaviour to blame the person for a bad moral action in her past live. Are you sure that such a causal connection exists?

No one blames anyone, that is just how reality works in Buddhismville.


text:
How should a theravada centre approach the lay people for support?
I was planning to visit a centre, so first I checked their webpage, I thought they are a lit too pushy when it comes to donations, asking for money in a very explicit way to pay their bills. OK, let me be fair, they have bills to pay and utilities can be expensive sometimes.
I have more experience with Mahayana (eventhough I follow Theravada now) and in the two centres I have been to, I have never seen similar thing, so it makes me wonder, why? Maybe their funding structures are different, more robust, I dont know...
Is there anything in the Vinaya that can help? What are the limits when it comes to asking for money?

Is the center run by monastics or lay people? Are the amounts listed suggested donations or set fees? Perhaps it makes a difference in the answer.

Robin, nice to "see" you again, I think it is run by a mix of lay and monastics, regarding the donations, there is no fixed or minimum amount, but the "requests" for donations are constant and very explicit, always linked to a bill (water, electricity etc)

It reminds me of the "new christian churchs" approach regarding donations, it is not forced, you are free to go without donating, however the topic is discussed constantly. As I said in the two centres I have been for more time (Mahayanas) they had a donation box and a library to sell books, that was ALL

My favorite essay on dana is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "No Strings Attached:
The Buddha's Culture of Generosity".
In it Thanissaro Bhikkhu points out the main criteria Buddha himself set for right dana (AN 6.37):

The donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is inspired; and after giving, is gratified. These are the three factors of the donor…
The recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.

He then goes on to show that explicitly asking for donations goes against the above:

In pressuring retreatants to give to teachers, it doesn't lead to gladness before giving, and instead sounds like a plea for a tip at the end of a meal. The frequent efforts to pull on the retreatants' heartstrings as a path to their purse strings betray a lack of trust in their thoughtfulness and leave a bad taste.

He mainly argues against putting hard dana amounts on dharma talks (making them paid lectures), but I feel it does apply to your case as well.
It's not clear what he proposes instead though, he does not really explain it at great details:

The ideal solution would be to provide a framework whereby serious Dhamma practitioners could be supported whether or not they taught. ... a genuine culture of dana ...

I personally believe in membership fees. Those lay people who are associated with a given Dharma Center for a long time, could organize a sort of PTA club (with optional membership!), collect membership fees among themselves, and then donate them to the center.

Yeah I think it is harder today, by the time of the Buddha when Vianaya was created they were Basically concerned with food, now we have food, electricity, water, taxes, etc etc life is more complicated and therefore more expensive...

@konrad01 It might be interesting to ask how e.g. Chinese temples are financed in the West.

I don't think this is an issue particular to any sect of Buddhism. Garnering enough financial support for an organization to keep doing what it's doing is a problem shared by religious organizations, non profit organizations, and even for profit businesses. Any organization that wishes to sustain itself must be able to meet expenses.
True enough that it's tradition for the dhamma to be given freely; never sold or traded in a transaction. But few of us are sitting under a tree hearing a dhamma talk from a wandering mendicant. If we are sitting in a nice Buddhist center of some sort, with heat, air conditioning, running water, lights, books, etc., someone has to pay for all that.
Of course there are rules for monastics to follow regarding money; so presumably a lay person or group of lay people at the center you visited are in charge of garnering support to keep the center open. The fact that they were very obvious about it may mean that the community in general has not been very generous in their support in the past and they may be trying to make it clear that support is needed and appreciated.
Dana is a very important Buddhist concept; but with so many newly converted Buddhists in the West (I believe you've mentioned that your geographic area has not had a long standing Buddhist presence.), there may not be a solid understanding yet of how Dāna pāramī helps to stabilize a Buddhist presence in a new area. It may take years for a new Buddhist center to build a loyal and generous following that would allow it to not be so obvious in asking for donations.
I'll close with the observation that a temple I attend that serves a traditionally Buddhist ethnic group seems far better supported financially than a lay lead group of Western converts to Buddhism which I previously belonged to. It could simply be a matter of making newer Buddhists understand that while Buddhism is wonderful, special, and brand new to them; there are still bills to pay.
On the other hand; if you see obvious signs of luxury living in the center, look for a new center! ;-)

It's easy to see faults of others, housholder Konrad, and interested.
Aside of some aspects what belongs to others, already mentioned here, one should not forget that lay people assisting monks are not assistance of other lay people and actually have no duties toward them.
When one enters another space with a costumer attitude, such will never be of benefit, especially in regard of Dhamma, so it's good to:
Better to Give than to Consume and a demanding mind, thoughts of "I have a right"... such is a mind of great wrong view and not really at a stage to gain any Dhamma.
It might be sometimes hard to access the Sangha but one should not forget that such is related to ones own debts in the world as well as Upanissaya. Nobody needs, has the duty, to give or provide you anything, even if you would be worthy of receiving gifts and hospitality.
Some hints how to approach lay - supporter of the Sangha, if that is even the matter here, wishing to do merits, some hints have been given here: [Q&A] Details on what may be given as alms (Tips for alms-giving)

A tip in reagard of organised monasteries
Stewards, monastery and Monk helpers

Good to note that centers and communities who serve visitors like gods, could do such very conscious in advanced for later gain. So it's importand to reflecct why one actually goes out to a buddhist center: To make merits or to use of old? In the second case, better to access markets and a person who is after consume will naturally only meet those trading in Dhamma, seldom find ways to make real fruitful merits, lacking Upanissaya, right view.
If wishing to run a center, help a monastery a question: How should a theravada centre approach the lay people for support? is good asked toward wise. If someone making use of possible gifts, an answer "how should they act toward me" is total wrong placed, right at the beginning.
(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)


text:
Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?
If I recall correctly, I once read (in a book which I no longer have) that:

The Fire Sermon happened (soon) after the Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
The Buddha spoke it to a believer/theorist/priest-like person of a non-Buddhist sect
The other person spoke first, giving their theory first
When the Buddha replies, the book said,

"The fire of life must be put out!", he thundered.

This version of the Fire Sermon isn't like that at all:

Delivered to 1000 monks
No thundering

Is there any text (including e.g. Mahayana) that you know of, that's like what I quoted above?
Are there any reports, any reliable report, on whether or how much the Buddha displayed emotional affect? Did he seem cheerful? Angry? Did he pretend to get angry?
If this question cannot be answered about the Buddha (e.g. because it was too long ago and not recorded), is there other people more recent who are "like the Buddha", about whom this is known?
It's usually difficult to judge how much affect a person displays (so it's useless to be judgmental); I'm wondering whether the Buddha is known to have "displayed affect" to an unusually high (very obvious) or to an unusually low degree.

I guess you could add to your question "should a Buddha display affect, or is it compatible with everything else?" In case nobody knows the answer to your actual Q. Awesome question btw.

Yes, this does ring a bell. I remember reading about a period when Buddha stayed with the Dreaded Kassapa and his fire worshippers (which is who he gave the Fire Sermon to). One episode depicted Buddha spending all night fighting with a naga (an archetype of wise man) both naga and Buddha using fire (a symbol of anger). Another episode depicted Kassapa yelling "You are not an Arahant!" at Buddha etc... Looks like the two did have some issues :)

There is an anecdote in Autobiography Of A Yogi where Paramahansa Yoganandaji displayed anger yet also was using it for good reason. Jesus drove out the moneychangers. Gandhi spoke harshly once that I heard of.

For a full account of the events surrounding the fire sermon, you have to look in the vinaya pitaka. An old translation of the complete account is here.
The closest he comes to "thundering" is when he defeats the naga:

3. Then the Blessed One entered the room where the fire was kept, made himself a couch of grass, and sat down cross-legged, keeping the body erect and surrounding himself with watchfulness of mind2. And the Nâga saw that the Blessed One had entered; when he saw that, he became annoyed, and irritated, and sent forth a cloud of smoke. Then the Blessed One thought: 'What if I were to leave intact the skin, and hide, and flesh, and ligaments, and bones, p. 120 and marrow of this Nâga; but were to conquer the fire, which he will send forth, by my fire.'
4. And the Blessed One effected the appropriate exercise of miraculous power and sent forth a cloud of smoke. Then the Nâga, who could not master his rage1, sent forth flames. And the Blessed One, converting his body into fire2, sent forth flames. When they both shone forth with their flames, the fire room looked as if it were burning and blazing, as if it were all in flames. And the Gatilas, surrounding the fire room, said: 'Truly, the countenance of the great Samana is beautiful, but the Nâga will do harm to him3.'
5. That night having elapsed, the Blessed One, leaving intact the skin and hide and flesh and ligaments and bones and marrow of that Nâga, and conquering the Nâga's fire by his fire, threw him into his alms-bowl, and showed him to the Gatila Uruvelâ Kassapa (saying), 'Here you see the Nâga, Kassapa; his fire has been conquered by my fire.' Then the Gatila Uruvelâ Kassapa thought: 'Truly the great Samana possesses high magical powers and great faculties, in that he is able to conquer by his fire the fire of that savage Nâga king, who is possessed of magical power, that dreadfully venomous serpent. He is not, however, holy (arahâ) as I am.'

Pretty clear that there wasn't actually any affectation on the Buddha's part. The word "threw" is a mistranslation; it would better be "placed".
The closest he gets to actual disturbance is when he finally confronts Uruvela Kassapa:

17. Then the Blessed One thought: 'This foolish man will still for a long time think thus: "Truly the great Samana possesses high magical powers and great faculties; he is not, however, holy like me." What if I were to move the mind of this Gatila (in order to show him my superiority).'
And the Blessed One said to the Gatila Uruvelâ Kassapa: 'You are not holy (arahâ), Kassapa, nor have you entered the path of Arahatship, nor do you walk in such a practice as will lead you to Arahatship. or to entering the path of Arahatship.'

Pretty tame, but then that's to be expected; he was, after all, a fully enlightened Buddha. There are a couple of examples I can think of where does affect an emotional disposition to get his point across, if only in the words he chooses:

His words to Vakkali, who spent all his time staring at the Buddha's majesty:

But in spite of the Teacher’s admonition, Vakkali could not let the Teacher get out of his sight or leave the Teacher’s presence. Finally the Teacher thought to himself, “Unless this monk receives a shock, he will never come to understand.” Now the season of the rains was at hand, and the Teacher desired to enter upon residence. So on the day appointed to enter upon residence, the Teacher went to Rājagaha, turning Vakkali away with the words, “Go back, Vakkali.” So for the space of three months Vakkali was unable to be with the Teacher and kept saying to himself, “The Teacher speaks to me no more.” Finally he said to himself, “What is the use of my living any longer? I will throw myself headlong from the top of a mountain.” And with this thought in mind, he climbed to the top of Mount Vulture Peak.
-- Dhp-A 381 (Burlingame, trans)

The English here is poor; apehi means "Go away!", or even "Get lost!", so it was a bit like a slap in the face to the poor deluded man.

His words to Devadatta, when he challenged the Buddha to enforce his five extreme rules:

'I would not give over the Bhikkhu-samgha, Devadatta, even to Sâriputta and Moggallâna. How much less, then, to so vile and evil-living a person as you.'
(Source)

The actual Pali of this one is actually closer to "lick-spittle", as per the footnote:

In the text read khavassa khelâpakassa. On the first word, compare V, 2, 8. For the second the Dhammapada commentator (Fausböll, p. 143) reads, as does the Sinhalese MS. in our passage, khelâsika. Buddhaghosa, explaining it, says, 'In this passage (we should recollect) that those who obtain the requisites (of a Bhikkhu) by an evil mode of life are said by the Noble Ones to be like unto spittle. The Blessed One calls him khelâpaka (to ex-press that) he eats, (that is, 'gains a living) in sin like that.' (For the Pâli, see the edition of the text, p. 323, where the comma after khelasadisâ should be before it.)

'Thundering' may imply 'bold' or 'loud', not 'angry'.
From The Buddha's Last Days,

The the venerable Sariputta came to see the Lord, saluted him, sat down on one side, and said, "It is clear to me Lord that there never has been, will be, or is now another ascetic or Brahmin who is better or more enlightened than the Lord.
You have spoken boldly with a bull's voice, Sariputta, you have roared the lion's roar of certainty! How is this? Have all the Arahant Buddhas of the past appeared to yu, and were their minds [etc.]

Loudness and/or confidence must have been useful, in a crowd: from
The Lion's Roar,

It is not typical of the Buddha to extol himself, for he did not intend his Dispensation to evolve into a personality cult centered around himself as a charismatic and powerful leader.
[...] "Here, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible. And that is a Tathagata's power that the Tathagata has, by virtue of which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.

Maybe too it was part of a style of oratory: from Kim,

Hereat, simply as a child engrossed in a new game, the lama threw back his head and began the full-throated invocation of the Doctor of Divinity ere he opens the full doctrine.

The "Lion's Roar" seems to be repeated in this Zen story: from The Last Poem of Hoshin,

Hoshin, with the roar of a conquering lion, shouted "Kaa!" and was gone.

As for displaying affect, No Attachment to Dust suggests,

Even though alone in a dark room, be as if you were facing a noble guest. Express your feelings, but become no more expressive than your true nature.

The Buddha explicitly warns against reacting to an insult with anger: from Akkosa Sutta: Insult
Whence is there anger
for one free from anger,
    tamed,
    living in tune —
one released through right knowing,
    calmed
    & Such.

You make things worse
when you flare up
at someone who's angry.
Whoever doesn't flare up
at someone who's angry
    wins a battle
    hard to win.

You live for the good of both
    — your own, the other's —
when, knowing the other's provoked,
    you mindfully grow calm.

When you work the cure of both
    — your own, the other's —
those who think you a fool
know nothing of Dhamma.

As most spiritual founders, the Buddha's life and actions are conveyed orally for 500 years and are prone to be expanded upon, embellished or even invented. I see the Flower Sermon as more representative of Buddha because for him the lesson was so simple. No need for words. No need for fiery emotions. Just hold up a flower - he is whispering inside, can't you see what is plain as day. One person saw it and became an important conveyor of the dharma.
A later Buddhist is Dogen. He wrote the Shobo Genzo or True Dharma Eye in order to demystify Buddhism in Japan from a religion of beliefs to a practice of realization.
Here is a link that describes this in more depth.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/shaner.htm

It is important to emphasize  Dogen's descriptive
          phenomenological     methodology    in    Shobogenzo.
          Shobogenzo  is a collection  of Dogen's  discourses,
          given  orally  and written, from 1231 until his death
          in  1253.  The  apparent  phenomenological  tenor  of
          Shobogenzo is characterized  by Dogen's argumentation
          based upon reference to everyday experience.  Dogen's
          foremost objective  in Shobogenzo  is to describe the
          most primordial mode of experience in which the world
          is presented to consciousness.  He is concerned  with
          faithfully  describing  a mode of experience  void of
          unjustified       presuppositions,       metaphysical
          conceptualizations, ontological  presuppositions,  or
          any other impairment of an authentic direct encounter
          with  th  world   as  it  is  originally   given   to
          consciousness.  Each fascicle  focuses  upon specific
          aspects  of experience, for example, its  istructure,
          temporal  component, ethical dimension, and so forth.
          Dogen's appeal to cultivate (shugyo(d)) an unimpaired
          experience  one's situation (jisetsu(e)) was intended
          to justify his insistence on practicing zazen (seated
          meditation).  Dogen abandoned his initial description
          of how to perform zazen (Fukanzazengi(f)) and
          --------------------------
              David  E.   Shaner  is  Assistant   Professor  of
          Philosophy,  Furman   University,  Creenville,  South
          Carolina. Philosophy East and West 35, no. 1 (January
          1985).
                            p. 18

    justification of its prominent role in the history of
    Buddhist practice (Bendowa(g)) in favor of describing
    the experience  of zazen itself  (Shobogenzo).  Since
    Dogen's  endeavor  is to describe  the  structure  of
    paradigmatic  modes  of experience  that authenticate
    Buddhist doctrines, a phenomenological interpretation
    is a more appropriate methodology  than, for example,
    a historical or analytical approach.(1)

Dogen tried to demystify the practice of meditation and put things in an experiential reference point. One must choose a path that is inclined to the ways that are your own inner orientation. Both of these examples offer evidence of the Buddha and Dogen being free of being firebrand preaching in favor of sticking to the plain, essentials of the path. This question remains open to various interpretation as long as no reliable sources exist directly from the time of Buddha. However, Dogen's life is well documented and may give us clues to the Buddha's style and intensity.

The Pāli Canon was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the death of Gautama Buddha.


text:
Is there a compassion only Buddhist path?
In a recent version of the Buddhist Geeks podcast Rick Hanson said that recent academic research is showing that in the Pali Canon there were teachings indicating that compassion is enough to progress all the way on the Buddhist path. He further states that this foreshadows the Mahayana developments and if this has been emphasised within the early schools it would have negated the need for Mahayana at all.
Does that ring any bells with anyone? Has anyone heard anything of this research or more broadly has anyone got any references where the Buddha really emphasises compassion and indicates that compassion alone is enough.
Note: if anyone is interested Rick Hanson says this in the last 10 minutes of the podcast.

It's at about time 29:55 through 30:48 in the podcast. Rick Hanson starts by saying (I paraphrase) that:

The Buddha talked about the three poisons: ignorance, anger, greed
Anger and greed map to the brain's two 'red-zone' behaviours, i.e. the 'aversion' and 'approaching' systems of the brain.

Rick goes on to say that the brain has a third need or drive i.e. "heart-ache" for which the antidote is "love", and,

recent scholarship has shown that for him [the Buddha] love is a fully-sufficient path to complete awakening, and scholarship today has shown that maybe if there was a better understanding at the time that that's what he taught, after he died, there might not have been a need for the Mahayana revision if you will in terms of bringing more heart back into Dhamma practice."

He goes on to say that there's a social brain, that love and social skills are the primary evolutionary driver of the brain, etc., that we need to honour heart-ache and pay attention to the attachment system. He thinks of "heartache" as a "fourth poison".

The recent scholarship that Hanson is referring to  is probably this, by Richard Gombrich, the eminent British academic scholar of Buddhism:
Kindness and Compassion as means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism
This abstract mentions other places where Gombrich explicated his thesis:

Gotama Buddha taught that compassion can produce enlightenment. So
  Richard Gombrich claims, based most notably on his reading of the
  Tevijja Sutta. First announced in his 1996 How Buddhism Began,
  Gombrich revisited this thesis (his “discovery”) the next year in his
  Gonda Lecture, “Kindness and Compassion as Means to Nirvana in Early
  Buddhism” and has returned to it more recently in his 2009 What the
  Buddha Thought.

Despite Gombrich's rather radical assertion, now almost 20 years ago, I have never been able to find any direct discussion of it by other authors either Western or of any tradition of Buddhism (the above paper is about the neuroscience of the issue). I suspect that is because it is so earthshaking for the Theravada -- effectively saying that they have been missing something huge in the Pali Canon for millenia -- that nobody would touch it with a ten-foot katvanga.
My own speculation (totally unsupported by any scholarship) is that Gombrich may have uncovered the hidden and forgotten roots of the Mahayana in the Pali Canon, but has mistaken it as an either-or doctrine when in fact it is meant -- and was developed by the Mahayana -- as a coordinate path to the highest enlightenment: you need both wisdom (Pañña, Prajna) and compassion, and at the highest level they actually become one.
Addendum -- 8/27/2015. I have since found this rejoinder to Gombrich by Bikkhu Bodhi, the distinguished Theravada scholar and translator. The nub of his objection to Gombrich's proposal is this:

But Gombrich then goes on to argue that for the Buddha union with
  Brahmà is simply a metaphor for Nibbàna, and thus he concludes the
  Buddha taught that kindness ... was a way to salvation (p. 62). Such
  an inference, however, cannot stand, for in many texts the Buddha
  declares the divine abodes to be inadequate for attaining Nibbàna
  (e.g. DN 17, MN 83, MN 97, etc.); it would also mean that paññā,
  insight or wisdom, is not needed for final liberation. Gombrich is not
  unaware of the texts that contradict his position, but he casually
  dismisses them as the work of the compilers of other suttas (p. 61).
  The contrary evidence, however, is just too weighty to allow such an
  easy way out.

He also asserts that "kindness is salvific" in his book "What the Buddha Thought" (which I enjoyed otherwise) with a strict partial look without really elaborating on all the suttas that strongly disagree (I was very confused by the sight of his credentials and such an obvious partiality)

As a practicing Theravadin I've studied the Pali Suttas very seriously for the past six years and I've never found anything in them that indicates that compassion is sufficient for enlightenment. In fact the term compassion (Karuna in Pali) is used quite infrequently. The term Metta meaning loving-kindness or goodwill is much more common than the term compassion.
The texts are emphatic in identifying the spiritual path with the Noble Eightfold path, particularly in terms of its alternate formulation as the threefold training of Sila, Samadhi, and Pañña.

Good point:  Crab Bucket's quote says "love" is sufficient, not compassion.  Not much of a distinction between them, in common usage in English... but in Buddhism, compassion and love are distinct enough to be listed as two of the "Four Immeasurables".

Has anyone heard anything of this research or more broadly has anyone got any references where the Buddha really emphasizes compassion and indicates that compassion alone is enough?
I have no knowledge about such research. I also can't recollect a reference from the early texts that points, even implicitly, in such direction. There's a reference pointing in the opposite way though:

"And how, bhikkhus, is the liberation of the mind by compassion
  developed? What does it have as its destination, its culmination, its
  fruit, its final goal? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the
  enlightenment factor of mindfulness accompanied by compassion … the
  enlightenment factor of equanimity accompanied by compassion, based
  upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release. If he
  wishes: ‘May I dwell perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive,’ he
  dwells perceiving the repulsive therein…. If he wishes: ‘Avoiding both
  the unrepulsive and the repulsive, may I dwell equanimously, mindful
  and clearly comprehending,’ then he dwells therein equanimously,
  mindful and clearly comprehending. Or else, with the complete
  transcendence of perceptions of forms, with the passing away of
  perceptions of sensory impingement, with nonattention to perceptions
  of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite,’ he enters and dwells in
  the base of the infinity of space. Bhikkhus, the liberation of mind by
  compassion has the base of the infinity of space as its culmination, I
  say, for a wise bhikkhu here who has not penetrated to a superior
  liberation."
-SN 46.54, Accompanied by Lovingkindness

Can you explain why that points in the opposite way, that is, to the insufficiency of compassion alone for enlightenment. Why does not the mere phrase "the liberation of mind by compassion" support the thesis in question? Of course, when we analyze these scriptures in translation, without knowledge of the original Pali along with some serious scholarship (of the kind that Gombrich applies in abundance), we are somewhat stabbing in the dark.

Because that would be reading it out of the context which it is written. Reading the whole paragraph tells one that reaching the base of infinity of space is the culmination of such pursuit, not awakening. In many places in the canon, these bases are referred to as liberations, not awakening. Such base is still within the bounds of perception and hence not a full penetration of suffering. Cessation would be a full penetration if seen with discernment. One could try to argue that compassion alone is enough, I wouldn't argue back though since I'm not interested in the dhamma for debating.

Not debating... just trying to understand. Looking stuff up, I see that the fifth jhana, aka the first formless realm, is infinite space, and I believe that is said to correspond to the Brahmavihara of compassion. That certainly is incompatible with Gombrich's thesis, but there are many contradictions in the Pali Canon. It's been a while since I read Gombrich's stuff so I cannot recall the (rather complex) line of exegesis and reasoning, but given Gombrich's stature as a scholar of Buddhism, I'm sure he is aware of this material and addresses it.

In any case, the original question was not whether the assertion is true, but what is the research that Hanson references.

I'm not well-studied or taught, but it seems to me that Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones says that (fully) overcoming any one of the three poisons is "sufficient".
My guess is that's something to do with dependent co-arising: eliminating one implicitly eliminates them all?
He says that explicitly about each of the three poisons, e.g.:

Abandon greed as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return.

Another single factor (not one of the three poisons and not sufficient to guarantee "complete awakening") is in verse 17:

With regard to external factors, I don't envision any other single factor like admirable friendship as doing so much for a monk in training, who has not attained the heart's goal but remains intent on the unsurpassed safety from bondage. A monk who is a friend with admirable people abandons what is unskillful and develops what is skillful.

The commentary quotes from the Upaddha Sutta,

In SN 45.2 the Buddha says, "Admirable friendship... is actually the whole of the holy life... It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth... aging... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair."

Well it is most certainly based on these passages;

Take another mendicant who says: ‘I’ve developed the heart’s release
by compassion. I’ve cultivated it, made it my vehicle and my basis,
kept it up, consolidated it, and properly implemented it. Yet somehow
the thought of harming still occupies my mind.’ They should be told,
‘Not so, venerable! … For it is the heart’s release by compassion that
is the escape from thoughts of harming.’
AN 6.13

One can make compassion one's vehicle all the way up to Arahantship but what this entails in practice is that one will primarily develop the theme of compassion for satisfying the mind and attaining seclusion. Furthermore one will develop the theme of compassion by pondering and connecting it to the themes of impermanence, not self and other helpful themes by inference and up to it's culmination in the removal of thoughts of harm altogether.
This is not an alternative path but a variation that is most suitable for some personality types.

Pure Land Buddhism
It's so much about compassion with Avalokiteśvara, the bodhisattva of compassion. IMO Pure Land Buddhism has allowed everyday people to easily achieve a deep meditative state not with pure abstract ideas like Zen but by using simple iconography (although most temples mix in some Zen). The issue and complaint for some is that some ascribe superstition to the teachings. As my master / bhikkhuni says "People come in [to the temple] when they're in trouble and pray but Buddha doesn't work that way." Even folks like Thích Nhất Hạnh have hinted that the Pure Land is more for the mind than anything else when he wrote about "if there's no lemon trees in the Pure Land."
My advice is explore Pure Land and remember that it's compassion that binds us together. Both the skeptic and superstitious can seat next to each other in a Buddha hall, get the exact same experience and be good friends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

The ultimate problem is ignorance, not cruelty. It's from the ignorance of the four noble truths that every suffering arises. Pragmatically, the problem is the ignorance of the nature of reality, namely that every composed phenomenon is impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty. You cannot destroy this ignorance by concentration alone. You need to understand the nature of reality so that you can let it go. I'm afraid there is no other way around this and every buddhist path converges here: direct experiencial understanding of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and emptiness.
There is a lot of room to emphasize the practice of love and compassion and it should be done. But not to the point where the only real solution to suffering is removed from the practice. Wise attention is what destroys ignorance.
As a personal speculation, I believe that liberation by metta (loving kindness), or metta release, means another thing. When a meditator attains any of the 4 levels of awakening described in the pali canon, he gets access to the practice of phala samapatti. The attainment of a level of awakening is marked by two consecutive events: path and fruit, or magga and phala. Phala samapatti is the recolection of the fruit consciousness that arises after a level of awakening is reached. I believe that metta release is in fact the recollection of the fruit consciousness brought about by the practice of metta. It's a particularly powerful way of abiding in the fruit consciousness and perfecting the release of the level of awakening the meditator is at.


text:
Can someone regain a Beginners Mind when it has gone?
Shunryu Suzuki famously said in Zen Mind, Beginners Mind

In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the
  expert’s there are few

But if one's beginners mind has gone is it possible to regain it. If so what can one do to get a beginner's mind back again.
The motivation for asking this is that after a years practice I had a very strong feeling of my beginners mind leaving me. I felt very fresh, vibrant and curious about practice for about a year then one day I could literally feel that ebb away. From that point my practice was different - maybe not worse but definitely has a different quality to it. It feels more like work I guess. So I've always been curious to whether that initial state would ever come back and if there was anything I could do to encourage it.

In the sense that Shunryu Suzuki uses "beginner's mind" there is no losing the beginners mind. It is our natural beingness. Being lost to it is believing there is something in this world of appearance that can fulfill us or satisfy our longing to be in "beginner's mind".
Here is one quote that talks about our natural beingness:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/62707.Shunryu_Suzuki

“Whereever you are, you are one with the clouds and one with the sun
  and the stars you see. You are one with everything. That is more true
  than I can say, and more true than you can hear.”  ― Shunryu Suzuki

The asker said
The motivation for asking this is that after a years practice I had a very strong feeling of my beginners mind leaving me.

The beginner's mind does not leave us, we leave the beginner's mind whenever we identify with the thoughts in our mind or believe we are separate from our natural being.
If we go to the original quote there is ample clarification of the sense intended
http://www.cuke.com/Cucumber%20Project/lectures/srl%20la%20beginners%20mind.html

In beginner’s mind we have many possibilities, but in expert mind
  there is not much possibility. So in our practice it is important to
  resume to our original mind or inmost mind which we, ourselves, even
  we ourselves do not know what it is. This is the most important thing
  for us. The founder of our school emphasized this point. We have to
  remain always beginners mind. This is the secret of Zen and secret of
  various practices -- practice of flower arrangement, practice of
  Japanese singing and various art. If we keep our beginner’s mind, we
  keep our precepts. When we lose our beginner’s mind we will lose all
  the precepts and for Zen students the most important thing is not to
  be dualistic or not -- we should not lose our self-satisfied state of
  mind. We should not be too demanding, or we should not be too greedy.
  Our mind should always be rich and self-satisfied. When our mind
  become demanding -- when we become longing for something, we will
  violate our precepts not to kill, not to be immoral, not to steal, or
  not to tell lie and so on. Those are based on our greedy mind. When
  our mind is self-satisfied we keep our precepts. When we ourselves is
  always self-satisfied, we have our original mind and we can practice
  good and we are always true to ourselves. So the most difficult thing
  is to keep our beginner’s mind in our practice. So if you can keep
  your beginner’s mind forever, you are Buddha. In this point, our
  practice should be constant. We should practice our way with
  beginner’s mind always. There is no need to have deep understanding
  about Zen. Even though you read Zen literature you have to keep this
  beginner’s mind. You have to read it with fresh mind. We shouldn’t
  say, “I know what is Zen” or “I have attained enlightenment.”. We
  should be always big enough. This is very important. And we should be
  very very careful about this point.

"So in our practice it is important to resume [revert] to our original mind or inmost mind which we, ourselves, even we ourselves do not know what it is."
So if you feel like your practice does not bring you wholly aware in beginner's mind, let us just accept where we are right now. It is not something we must attain, but we must experience cessation from the samsara or worldly mind, then the Buddha mind or beginner's mind is self apparent.

In the Mahasi tradition we don't have the idea of beginner's mind, just a continuous refinement of the process. Many times throughout my practice, I've learned that some phenomena or thought process was just that—where previously I mistook it for a deeper reality. And I continue to experience these refinements.
But to attempt to answer your question, try not to hang on to the desire for Beginner's Mind. It will come back on its own. In addition, I would say be gentle to your mind and body. Those particular helped me the most when I was struggling in my practice. Maybe it will work the same way for you, in that being gentle with yourself may allow the Beginner's Mind to return when you least expect it.

A few years ago, I started having an experience like "I'm finally learning the things I knew when I was 17."  (I'm 55 now;  no implication that it takes decades, lol.)
It's natural to have beginner's mind when everything is a literally new experience, and you're "learning".  Now, beginner's mind is still natural (see soulsings' answer), but a "learner" part of you will be participating in that, in new way after new way.  That may seem like you're "learning more" (see qweilun's answer), or it may not require learning at all.
For those of us who came to Buddhist thinking thru New Age thinking, this is one of the places in New Age thinking, where it's easy to get stuck:  thinking that it will always be spiritual "evolution", self "development" (whatever the self is ;)  and "learning principles"... all of which has value, but if we "identify" with this "forever learner", it automates itself, and can be experienced as unstoppable, even as a burden...
Whereas another thing I've noticed recently:  that my most touching "lessons" are not "learning"... less and less "new information"... more and more "old information freshly present."
Somewhat aside, but that you might enjoy considering: Gangaji, (a Zen Buddhist who became a student of Papaji), sometimes says things like this, that have a beginner's mind flavor, for me:
"What is at peace, what is already free, what is endless in its realization of itself, is here now, and is who you are."
In that context, there is the endless, which will never provide a "place to land", and the already here, which does not require a "place to land."

"old information freshly present." Hurray! Beautiful! Last sentence is great also.

No. You'll never get it back. You're not a beginner anymore. Your definitions are what prevent you- the fact that you experience a "beginners mind" as something of its own means you hold yourself to those definitions. The mind should be in a constant state of what you might term "beginners mind" simply from knowing itself- they go hand in hand. Not just observing oneself, but the unity of knowing oneself. So I say; find yourself and you will have what you want.
That's where I want to stop, because I don't think you'll really benefit from an explanation, but this is stack exchange so it's for everybody and I'll give some explanation.
What you are calling a beginners mind is a concept that you have extrapolated from something somebody once said. It was said to call attention to the particular ways of thinking by relating them to an experience we can relate to. When we are new to something, we are somewhat in awe of it because we cannot sometimes even fathom its circumference. To us, it is still infinite, in a sense. The expert, however, is well acquainted with something; to him, its circumference is well known. No mystery left there. But there is ALWAYS something more and you do yourself a disservice to ever think that you've seen it all. But really, these two are merely the two sides of a coin that you should just throw away. Hope this helps.