text:
What is the resort of Nibbaana?
In Unnabho Brahmano Sutta: The Brahman Unnabha  says

"There are, Brahman, these five sense-faculties... which do not share
  in each other's sphere of action. Mind is their resort, and it is mind
  that profits from their combined activity."
"But, good Gotama, what is mind's resort?"
"Mind's resort, Brahman, is mindfulness."[4]
"Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of mindfulness?"[5]
"The resort of mindfulness, Brahman, is liberation."
"Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of liberation?"
"The resort of liberation is Nibbaana."
"Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of Nibbaana?"
"That question goes too far Brahman. No answer can encompass it. The
  aim of the holy life, Brahman, is immersion[6] in Nibbaana, it has
  Nibbaana for its final end, Nibbaana for its conclusion."

Is this suttha says Nibbaana resort on five seance faculties?  or If Not how can it seance?

In my opinion, "resort" is a bad translation for patisaranam (literally, something other things rest on) -- a better option in this particular context would be "apex". Compare with following simile from Milindapanha:

Like in a building with a pointed roof: whatever rafters they are, they all rest on the apex, lean towards the apex, meet at the apex, and the apex is pointed to as their chief. So is the samadhi in its relation to the other wholesome dharmas.

It does make more sense this way, doesn't it:

Brahman Unnabha: As the five faculties are of different scope and range, and do not share in each other's sphere of action, what is their apex, and who profits from their combined activity?
Buddha: Mind is their apex, and it is mind that profits from their combined activity.
B.U.: But, good Gotama, what is mind's apex?
B: Mind's apex, Brahman, is mindfulness.
B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of mindfulness?
B: The apex of mindfulness, Brahman, is liberation.
B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of liberation?
B: The apex of liberation is Nirvana.
B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of Nirvana?
B: That question goes too far, Brahman.

"That question goes too far Brahman. No answer can encompass it. The
  aim of the holy life, Brahman, is immersion[6] in Nibbaana, it has
  Nibbaana for its final end, Nibbaana for its conclusion."


text:
Three Marks of Existence in Mahayana
What is the equivalent to the 3 Marks of Existence in Vajrayana or Mahayana Buddhism? I heard a version of the Buddha's enlightenment¹, where the Buddha  didn't realize impermanence, dukkha and no-self but in place of that he realized the past, the present and the future. That sounded a bit odd to me, is that a popular Vajrayana version of the Buddha's enlightenment?

¹ Here is how the Buddha's enlightenment is narrated in the movie "Kundun":

"Then, at the time of midnight,
  the Bodhisattva saw a clear light. Then he saw in a single instant
  the three states of existence,
the past,
   the present,
   and the future
purified by the clear light.
  Then, sitting at the Tree of Enlightenment, he conquered
  all the devils."

Most of the time in Mahayana (both Vajrayana and Zen) I hear of Four Marks of Existence: Transience, Unsatisfactoriness, Corelessness, and Nirvana. All four are subsumed under Shunyata (Emptiness) which is equated with Pratitya-Samutpada (Dependent Co-Arising).
Not sure about past, present and future. Anyone?

Do you have a reference for this?

For which one, for Nirvana included in the marks, for subsuming them under shunyata, or for equating shunyata with dependent-coarising? I don't have time for all three references, you have to pick one ;)

I think all of these assertions need backing up. As an answer there's not much to recommend this. But for example I have never seen nirvāṇa included as a fourth lakṣana in any Mahāyāna text. Nor have I seen all four subsumed. The last many Madhyamakas seem to like to argue with, so is at best a moot point.

@Jayarava for the first point, google "Four Dharma Seals" or "shihoin buddhism".  See for example http://lionsroar.com/buddhism-nutshell-four-seals-dharma - I've heard this many times from various teachers - I'm surprised you've never encountered this?!

For the last point, I believe it was made by Nagarjuna. For detailed analysis see "The Foundational Standpoint of Madhyamika Philosophy" by Gadjin Nagao.

On the whole I'm not interested in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Tibetan forms of Mahāyāna Buddhism even less. I'd still like to know when these ideas entered Mahāyana, because as I say I've not encountered them in Sanskrit Mahāyāna texts.

"There are here, O monks, some foolish men who study the Teaching; having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight." -- Buddha in MN 22, The Snake Simile Sutra.

Here the 'Theravada' Tag is added.
So The definitions for "Timeless" is given as like this:
akaliko [akaaliko]: Timeless; unconditioned by time or season. The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does hosting guests at home with meat and alcohol (because they are fond of it) amount to aiding the guests break their Sila?
I'm a strict vegetarian and non-alcoholic. But all my friends are non-vegetarians and alcohol consumers. So, when I host a party at my place, it becomes obligatory of me to host them with alcohol and non-vegetarian food (bought from a restaurant). Although, I have done this in the past, I have started to think if it is really right of me to do so, since I may be aiding them in breaking their Sila. But, coming from a culture where guests are to be treated as Gods, I also wonder if it will be rude of me to call them home and not serve to their liking.
So, should I, at the cost of hosting a boring(for them) party, appearing rude and risk losing their company, help them keep their Sila intact (if at all it does) at least for an evening? Or should I not bother about trying to combine preaching and hosting and keep my ethics limited to me?
P.S. I'm convinced that consumption of meat and alcohol is breaking of Sila in the true spirit of the Buddha's teachings, irrespective of how certain sects or traditions of Buddhism may justify alcohol and meat consumption.

What sects of Buddhism consider eating meat a breaking of lay precepts?

@adamokkha Mahayana Buddhism in China, Taiwan, Viet Nam, Korea. Also Japan, but only before the Meiji. Numbers are hard to come by for the US, but in unscientific polls, as many as 50% of self identified Buddhists are vegetarian, which is 2500% higher than the general population. Some specific teacher in Tibetan Buddhism, but not entire sects/schools. Also, in East Asia, you sign up for as many or as few precepts as you want-- from refuge only to lay Bodhisattva precepts which is strongly vegetarian.

A good friend is one who helps his friend become a better person, even at the cost of popularity.
I think reasonable people definitely do understand dietary choices when it's explained with humility and reason.
As your friends, they ought to be capable of respecting your wise choices in life.

In a bodhisattva sense one must engage with society, and host guests properly, but it's very tricky, and in many ways far tougher than wandering alone as a hermit.
I think you're being trapped into confirming to social norms as well as your beliefs. You need to decide which between the two is the tie breaker when they come in conflict.

If your friends don't understand your beliefs, and if you are of the Theravada bent of mind, then the answer is very clear - go alone, avoiding false companions. If you are more worldly, then there's other very sociable passages to quote from elsewhere in the Buddhist canon.

There are verses in the Dhammapada (verse 61 onwards) about choosing one's companions wisely. This is also reflected in some of the earliest suttas like the Rhinoceros (sword horn) sutra which precisely warns of this trap of being waylaid by misdirected compassion.
I'm quoting here select portions of the sutra linked above.

For a sociable person
  there are allurements;
  on the heels of allurement, this pain.
  Seeing allurement's drawback,
  wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.
One whose mind
  is enmeshed in sympathy
  for friends and companions,
  neglects the true goal.
  Seeing this danger in intimacy,
  wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.
There is sporting and love
  in the midst of companions,
  and abundant fondness for offspring.
  Feeling disgust
  at the prospect of parting
  from those who would be dear,
  wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.
We praise companionship
  -- yes!
  Those on a par, or better,
  should be chosen as friends.
  If they are not to be found,
  living faultlessly,
  wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.
People follow and associate
  for a motive.
  Friends without a motive these days
  are rare.
  They are shrewd for their own ends, and impure.
  Wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.

Although, I have found most of the answers to my question to be interesting and they have helped me build a perspective to the subject, they were mostly personal opinions. I have accepted this answer since, this was the only one which quoted a reference from a Buddhist text supporting the answer. I have read the Rhinoceros Sutta for the first time after it was quoted here and I feel it is extremely useful in helping one decide how to make choices from a Buddhist perspective. The Sutta is indeed highly inspiring and invigorating to uphold one's Sila and strive on, come what may.

"So, when I host a party at my place, it becomes obligatory of me to host them with alcohol and non-vegetarian food (bought from a restaurant). "
I don't see how it is obligatory. You could serve delicious vegetarian food and non-alcoholic drinks. If you take your Buddhist precepts you are not supposed break them yourself or encourage others to break them. I think your instincts on this are correct.
Would it be so boring? Have you spoken to your friends about this? Why not raise the subject and see what they say?

+1 because you suggested he asked before. Which is really a GREAT suggestion. If he invites them at "a Buddhist party", with them fully realising this means no meat and no alcohol, whoever comes will know what to expect and it will be great.

Party is made fun by people sharing their love and life experiences with each other, not by meat and alcohol.
More importantly, in this case, I think you should uphold your spirit and not bend to your friends' opinions. Do not be afraid to show your friends who you really are, your real value system. Living authentic life is better in long-term, than pretending to be someone else out of fear of losing the little you have.
No need to boast or preach. Just do what you truly believe in, they will see and ask, and then you can answer.

I'm unconvinced. I agree he should not pretend to be someone he isn't, but I also think that obliging your guest needs is still a very nice thing to do. If you are herbivore and I'll offer you dinner, I'll make sure there's something you can eat… if I'm not and if you're offering me dinner, it's absolutely normal to assume you'd like me to have some meat to eat. Forcing your self-imposed limitation upon the others has never and will never be a wise thing to do.

@Lohoris you don't come to their houses to force your limitation on others, you don't even force it in your house - if you guests wanted to bring meat or alcohol you don't have to start a fight.

for the record, I'm not a vegetarian anymore - and my point isn't even about this, it is about being bold enough to express who you are in action, and to take the ownership and build the world the way you see it, at least in your own house.

I understand your point, and I disagree. As you suggest, you would still be forcing your views upon others, who then will feel awkward and would definitely dislike this action of yours. You would be forcing a strong statement upon people you invited as friends.

Then maybe they should not be my friends?

On the subject of food, I do not see any issue with not serving meat. I would not expect any of my vegetarian friends to prepare meat for me.
With alcohol, the same applies, but because it's more "expected" in a party (depending on how it's advertised to the invitees), it would make sense to mention this and allow people to bring their own. "Alcohol will not be served but feel free to bring your own." This reduces the extent to which you could be seen as an "enabler" of their "sin".
"Bring your own" can also apply to food in some cases - when hosting a barbecue for example, you could provide vegetarian options while allowing guests to bring (and if necessary, cook) their own meat. You may need a separate grill in that case though.

As someone has already mentioned, a social gathering of any sort is for people to meet, share their troubles and joys and to unburden themselves from their daily routine. The food and drink served is secondary.
From your question it seems like your friends are important to you and so are your beliefs. It is not impossible for them to coexist peacefully.
Indeed you may think that by serving them meat and alcohol you are aiding them break their Sila but by forcing them to abide by the "my house, my rules" you would be seen as trying too hard to get them to see your opinions.
Losing friends just because they don't think like you is also not an option I'd suggest - you're never going to find people who think exactly like you do, and also it would be uninteresting. I'd find nothing new to learn if I wasn't in the company of people who were not like me.
I'd suggest a gentler approach. If you are happy to continue serving meat and alcohol, maybe talk to them about how you think being a vegetarian has been beneficial to you in more ways than one, how it is probably better for the environment and to our health, talk about some really delicious vegetarian dishes you managed to cook, talk about your beliefs and how they are important to you and gradually suggest going for a vegetarian only meal the next time they are around.
This way they will gradually and hopefully grow to respect your beliefs. It is a slow process but it bears more fruit than imposing a meat and alcohol ban or losing your friends.

According to the Talaputa Sutta:

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound
  by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things
  inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a
  festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who
  are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on
  things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst
  of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin
  with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more
  delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage
  in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated &
  heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the
  breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell
  of laughter.

There is a discussion in this answer:

The Buddha quote from the sutta says that anyone with some passion,
  aversion or delusion, reinforces it by watching the actor's
  performance. The actor too is intoxicated with emotions due to getting
  into character to play the role. And by acting out the role on stage,
  the actor has the intention of getting the audience to experience the
  same emotions. This intention is karma.

So, this applies to your question too, if you had the intention to satisfy their craving for alcoholic intoxication, which is not allowed in the five precepts.
Meat on the other hand, may be a different story according to the Theravada tradition, based on this article and this question, as picking out meat from the supermarket does not count as having the intention of taking the animal's life, since it was already dead and you did not select it to be slaughtered.
While it could be argued that serving meat satisfies the craving for its taste, but then again, meat and any food is required for our physical sustenance, regardless of craving for sensual pleasure. So, this is OK in my opinion. Of course, good vegetarian food is also sufficient for physical sustenance and meat is not required (in most cases).
Alcohol on the other hand, is not needed for physical sustenance. It is used only for intoxication.

This is an answer about whether to drink yourself: but is it an answer about whether to allow (or 'enable') non-Buddhist friends to drink?

@ChrisW - You are right. I will update my answer with the "actors go to hell" sutta.

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


text:
Textual reference vs. Direct insight
Somewhat loaded question... According to Buddha, what is more reliable -- textual reference or one's own direct insight that came from experience?
If one's own insight is in conflict with a text, should one trust the text or one's own insight? Is there anything Buddha said about this?

My personal preference is always for direct insight - but if a text contradicts, I make it my next object of contemplation to see how that view could also be right. Often truth can look vastly different when viewed from different angles, that's often the only difference since the text too was someone's direct insight. Sorry, don't have a sutta for you, hence a comment, not an answer. NB: I am speaking of direct insight arising from beyond intellectual thought. Mere intellectual thinking can often be flat out wrong, much better to go with the text in those cases.

I realized this is one of those "debate" type questions that seek opinions and not real answers. I would like to close this as to set a good example for others.

The Kalama Sutta says that you should "know for yourselves".
It also suggests that one should consider the opinion of "the wise". Elsewhere too it's said to be important to have admirable people as friends.
Something like the Sarakaani Sutta suggests that faith (faith in the "text", perhaps) is beneficial; but that it's also possible to "destroy three fetters". The commentary says,

These are the first three of the five lower fetters, i.e., sakkaaya-ditthi "personality-view" or belief in a permanent, really existing self; vicikicchaa "doubt" (once the "personality-view" has been shattered, there can be no further fundamental doubt about the Dhamma); and siilabbata-paraamaasa "attachment to rites and rituals" (siila + vata).

If you reach the state of "lack of doubt" I think that implies you trust your own insight.
There's a long definition of Vicikiccha (perhaps several definitions).
Some of the things you shouldn't doubt include the Buddha, Sangha, and Dhamma (which might mean, "you shouldn't doubt the text", i.e. "insight confirms the accuracy of the Buddha’s teaching"). But then the last paragraph i.e. ...

Why, Mahaanaama, if these great sal trees could distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken, I would proclaim these great sal trees to be Stream-Winners...

... implies that a stream-winner is defined by the ability to "distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken".
Also the Kaccayanagotta Sutta says that right view is a knowledge that is independent of others

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

Indeed, knowledge of what is and what isn't the path is explained in further detail in the visuddhimagga : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf
page 631

@ChrisW I feel your answer is quite apt. But I could also be wrong :)

@Ryan I deleted various comments. If you want to post about Jayarava's interpretation of the Kalama sutta, you might be able to do that either by asking a new question, or perhaps by posting an answer to his question here about that sutta.

Whenever there's a conflict between the text and your personal experience, several things could go wrong.

What you think as direct insight could easily be a misjudgement on your part.
ex: 500 years ago, if an average person read in a book that the earth goes around the sun or the earth is round, he would've felt such teachings go against what he took to be his direct experience. A meditator can sit for an hour and feel pain in his legs the whole time and think that pain doesn't go away until he does something about it. And when he moves his legs, the pain goes away. So he could take that view as insight.
Same text can be interpreted in different ways by different teachers. So it could be that you or your teacher is interpreting the text wrong. This is one place where the commentaries are useful. Cross check your understanding of the text with the commentaries to see if it deviates a lot. If it does, most probably you got it wrong. Reevaluate your understanding to see whether it leads you to detachment.
Compilers of the text heard it wrong or understood it wrong. This is highly unlikely as the text(Tipitaka) has survived several Buddhist councils which were headed by many enlightened monks. So this is the last thing one should be worried about.

The Buddha never relied on text even to record his teachings but he did rely on direct insight to get his students to Nirvana. One can't reach liberation without direct insight. Text is very conceptual and of course the Buddha taught to transcend conceptual reality because it can't be relied on to give %100 truth but direct experience can be relied on as perfect truth.

Exerpts from Mahaparinibbana sutta DN 16:

The Four Great References
  7. And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:

  "So be it, Lord."

  8-11. Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

  "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

From MN 70, the Buddha taught about the Gradual Training:

Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice. And how is there the attainment of gnosis after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice? There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it."

Since in the Buddha's time there were no Buddhist texts this is indeed a loaded question. And the second unanswerable is unanswerable from a putative Buddha's point of view, because there were no texts for him to have a view of.
On the other hand Prof.s Richard Gombrich, K R Norman and, to lesser extent,  Johannes Bronkhorst pointed out the the Buddha of the Pāḷi Canon seems to have known some Brahmanical texts. Some he cited as an example of wrong view (texts relating to ātman) and some he cited as a parody (Agañña Sutta). Later the parodies were often taken seriously (the joke was forgotten and the Agañña becomes official cosmology).
The question is badly formed. It ought to be "What is the role of texts in Buddhism?" Texts play many roles in Buddhism.

Recipes for lifestyles and practices
Inspiring stories
Corporate memory - a record of what Buddhists have thought over centuries
Maintaining group identity

These days we also tend to mistake method for doctrine and specific doctrine for universal doctrine. The classic case of this is the 12 Nidānas. They were originally a list for reflection on experience. But they became reified into a doctrine of what experience is. And then further degraded into a universal theory of conditionality, and again to be a universal theory of causality.
The texts we have inherited are a ragtag collection of bits and pieces, ostensibly preserved orally for some centuries before being written down. They are full of internal contradictions and often philosophically incoherent. But of course Buddhists do not like to talk about this much.
One must always take the texts with a grain of salt. They are literary products; tall stories, legends, and myths; full of miracles, magic, and supernatural beings. They represent the imagination of Iron Age religieux in North India.


text:
Is The Kālāma Sutta Really Libertarian?
The Kālāma Sutta is often cited with approval by Modernist Buddhists as affirming a Libertarian ideology in which one need not take cognisance of anyone else's opinions or group norms, but one can simply decide for oneself what is important and meaningful.

"Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement." (As good a definition as any)

The part of the text so often cited is the negative criteria for decision making:

“Here Kālāmas: don't use revelation, don't use lineage, don't use quotations, don't use tradition; don't use speculation, don't use inference, don't use signs, don't use understanding based on views, don't uncritically accept what seems likely; don't use respect for a sāmaṇa. When you know for yourselves "these things are unskilful, offensive (sāvajja), criticised by
  the wise, these things undertaken and accomplished result in harm and misery‟ then you should abandon them.” My translation

The negative criteria are phrased in Pāḷi as, for example mā anussavena, i.e. the prohibitive particle (mā) with an noun in the instrumental case and no verb. So in fact it is difficult to tell what the prohibition refers to except from the context. Buddhaghosa supplies the verb gaṇhittha, the past participle of gaṇhati "to grasp". So his view seems to be that the first criteria is "don't be gripped by revelation". The context shows that these are various means for making decisions about how to behave. They are not used for testing the validity of beliefs.

Does the Kālāma Sutta really encourage libertarianism?
Why do people read the negative criteria as referring to test beliefs?
Do the Kālāmas themselves embody Libertarianism in their own lives, in this or any other sutra?

Again, this sounds more like a preaching than an inquiry...

@yuttadhammo I have to say I really like this question. Maybe OP does have his own opinion (I'm sure he does :-)) but I've heard this sutra been used to defend very modernist/secular positions and I would be really interested to see if it actually does. As ever just my opionion

one need not take cognisance of anyone else's opinions or group norms, but one can simply decide for oneself what is important and meaningful

That's not what I read into it.
A question you should consider, one of the yardsticks by which to measure or test a belief ('doctrine', 'quality', or 'behaviour') is whether it is "praised by the wise" and "blameless".
It also states several bits of Buddhist doctrine as self-evident, for example ...

When greed arises in a person ... it arises for harm not for welfare"

... and/or axiomatic, for example ...

"And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering"

I think that if what you "simply decide for yourself" contradicts these (Buddhist) axioms then I don't see such a decision as being supported by the sutta.
Instead I think it's saying that if you practice the (Buddha's) doctrine then you will experience (i.e. "know for yourself") the result (and that the result will be a better result).
I find it more prescriptive than permissive, for example ...

One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now

... is prescribing a "mind thus free from hostility".

Is The Kālāma Sutta Really Libertarian?

I found this page on fakebuddhaquotes which gives what the author describes as a "libertarian" interpretation of the sutta ...

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

... and which it says is ...

... is a bad translation of the Kalama Sutta — so bad, in fact, that it contradicts the message of the sutta, which says that reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the truth.

His view of the sutta is,

The Buddha’s reply is very full, but it’s clear he says that “reason” (logical conjecture, inference, analogies, agreement through pondering views) and “common sense” (probability) are not sufficient bases for determining what the truth is. It’s not that these things should be discarded, but ultimately it’s experience and the opinion of the wise that is our guide.

Further to that ...

Now you don’t have to take everything they say as being the absolute truth. You can use your reason, your common sense, and your experience as a guide. Not all of “the wise” will agree, for example, so you’re still going to have to figure things out for yourself ultimately.

Still he claims that the criterion that "the opinion of the wise should be a guide" is often overlooked, and he describes this (overlooking this criterion) as a "libertarian" position.
IOW (to answer your question) I think the author believes that the sutta isn't really "libertarian" in that sense.

a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective

Well that might have a parallel in Buddhism, for example The Taste of Freedom,

As though in response to mankind's call for wider frontiers of freedom, the Buddha offers to the world His Teaching, the Dhamma, as a pathway to liberation as applicable today as it was when first proclaimed twenty-five centuries ago.
"Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline (dhammavinaya) there is but one taste — the taste of freedom": with these words the Buddha vouches for the emancipating quality of His doctrine.

Or for example the word ananta (endless, limitless, infinite) was mentioned in another topic that people were discussing recently.
However that's not the same interpretation of "liberty" as various modern versions of 'libertarian' some of which say (if I'm not misrepresenting them) for example that people are well-advised to arm themselves in order to be able to defend their own property with lethal violence.
If you're looking for a parallel outside Buddhism, I know hardly nothing about schools of politics or philosophy but I'd guess that Buddhism might be closer to stoicism than libertarianism; in that for example something like this sounds Buddhist to me,

The Stoics taught that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection", would not suffer such emotions.

In terms of "freedom", it doesn't mean (doesn't teach) freedom to have destructive emotions (and/or behaviours): what it's teaching is freedom from destructive emotions.

Why do people read the negative criteria as referring to test beliefs?

You're saying it's about behaviour not belief, i.e. it's about "making decisions about how to behave".
I see that as a "belief" for these reasons:

In the translation I'm  using the Kalamas start with,

They expound & glorify their own doctrines etc.

The question then is about "doctrine" which I equate with "belief" (even when the subject of the belief is "how to behave").
The Buddha asks them,

What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises etc.

I'm equating that question "what do you think" with a question about belief, i.e. "what do you believe?"
The subject of the Buddha's questions is the three unwholesome roots, and I think he's saying "Buddhist doctrine is that these are unwholesome" and is asking various questions about this doctrine:

Do you believe this doctrine? Given that you do ...
Do the wise agree with this doctrine? And ...
If you practice this doctrine does it lead to welfare?

So again it's talking about doctrine, for example the belief that greed is an unwholesome root.
I equate 'belief' with 'view'; Wikipedia's description of right view suggests that it,

... acts as the reasoning with which someone starts practicing the path. Right view gives direction and efficacy to the other seven path factors.

So behaviour is important, but perhaps action proceeds from view, i.e. you behave a certain way because you have a view (or belief) about behaviour and about how to train your behaviour.

@Jayarava If you want to speed up the deletion of obsolete comments you can do that by deleting your own comments and/or by flagging other people's. If you want to suggest further improvement to this answer (or have questions about it) feel free to post a further comment. If you're able and willing to post another or a better or a further answer to this question yourself, then you're allowed to do that too.

@Jayarava If you're using a mouse and hover over a comment then a 'delete this comment' icon appears at the end (bottom right) of the comment? And to the left of the comment, icons to upvote or flag the comment.

Let's try to discuss this on meta where I can post a screenshot.

Libertarianism as a political project is, generously, only a couple hundred years old. The Kālāma Sutta couldn't be libertarian even if it wanted to be, not anymore then we could call the Buddha a Darwinian or Jesus a Marxist.

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


text:
Scientific Reincarnation Research
Buddhists often cite the research of people like Ian Stevenson or Jim Tucker in support of their views on rebirth. My understanding however is that these researchers consider their evidence supports the idea of reincarnation - i.e. that they believe in a strong form of body/mind or matter/spirit dualism which allows for the same spirit to inhabit a series of new bodies and thus retain their memories (which are perforce not stored physically in the brain, but psychically in some as yet unknown medium that is available to beings whatever body they happen to be in).
Doesn't this approach contradict Buddhist doctrines on rebirth and dependent arising?
Given that it conflicts with our fundamental doctrines, how do we explain the popularity of such reincarnation research amongst Buddhists?

As far as I'm aware, experiments of Dr.Ian Stevenson are referred to by Buddhists to convince materialists & the followers of monotheistic religions that there's a Samsara. There's no intention of getting them to believe in a soul. The approach isn't perfect as you have pointed out. But it could be effective for monotheists and those who refuse to accept anything other than what scientists say. Putting Anatta into the mix can make it too confusing for newbies. So as long as the emphasis is put on Samsaric existences, it should be ok.
A question related to memory and persistance is answered here.

Ha. Yes I coincidentally answered this question at length this morning.

Buddhist more frequently refers Edgar Cayce:
Edgar Cayce (1877–1945) founded the non-profit Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.) in 1931, to explore spirituality, holistic health, intuition, dream interpretation, psychic development, reincarnation, and ancient mysteries—all subjects that frequently came up in the more than 14,000 documented psychic readings given by Cayce.

The concept of reincarnation shocked and challenged Edgar Cayce and
  his family. They were deeply religious people, doing this work to help
  others because that's what their Christian faith taught. Reincarnation
  was not part of their reality.Yet, the healings and help continued to
  come. So, the Cayce family continued with the physical material, but
  cautiously reflected on the strange philosophical material.
  Ultimately, the Cayce's began to accept the ideas, though not as
  "reincarnation." Edgar Cayce preferred to call it, "The Continuity of
  Life." As a child, he began to read the Bible from front to back, and
  did so for every year of his life. He felt that it did contain much
  evidence that life, the true life in the Spirit, is continual.

With an international headquarters in Virginia Beach, Va., a regional headquarters in Houston, regional representatives throughout the U.S., Edgar Cayce Centers in 37 countries, and individual members in more than 70 countries, the A.R.E. community is a global network of individuals. http://www.edgarcayce.org
**Body/mind or matter/spirit dualism**

Buddhist equivalent is nāma-rūpa/viññāna.
Explained using Dependent arising (paṭiccasamuppāda).

Doesn't this approach contradict Buddhist doctrines on rebirth and dependent arising?

I think that some forms of Buddhism have a doctrine of reincarnation. I'm unqualified to explain it but for example, there's a page about Reincarnation on the Dalai Lama's web site.

Given that it conflicts with our fundamental doctrines, how do we explain the popularity of such reincarnation research amongst Buddhists?

I don't know that they are especially popular but you can use this search to see the contexts in which Stevenson is cited on this site.

Thanks for the other answers. The range of approaches is broader than I might have expected.


text:
Finding Authentic Suttas
Is there some website or book somewhere that lists suttas on different criteria like what suttas are more core or more likely to be authentic do to scholarly analysis like comparing Chinese translations or other ways of analysis...that brings me to another question. What are the different ways scholars can find clues or evidence of a sutta's authenticity?

Traditionally, the criteria for teaching authenticity are:

it must not contradict the observable facts and laws of nature,
it must not contradict commonly recognized moral rules,
it should lead to letting go, cooling down, emancipation, liberation,
it should be traceable to a remark made in the suttas, preferably in multiple places.

Where is this list from?

I heard it from my teacher and he must have heard it from his teacher ;)

Traditionally indeed :)

The answer does not address the question which was about how scholars determined "authenticity".

@AndreiVolkov In the first point, what is considered "observable facts and laws of nature"?

In Theravada, the criteria for accepting any teaching as authentic is based on Mahapadesa sutta, also found in Mahaparinibbana sutta and Nettipakarana. Accordingly, any Dhamma that's heard as a Buddha's statement must be verified with the suttas and the vinaya.
This also indicates that the authority increases from a single monk to a group of monks, and the highest authority is given to the words directly heard from the Buddha. Even so, it must be cross checked with the suttas and vinaya to see if they were interpreted correctly.

Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might
  speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and
  learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's
  Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a
  community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I
  have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline,
  the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name
  live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have
  accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the
  Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have
  heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the
  Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives
  a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished
  his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the
  Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned
  thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's
  Dispensation.'
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is
  neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval
  and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word,
  one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the
  Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor
  verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this
  is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by
  that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that
  elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the
  sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by
  the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the
  Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu
  — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in
  that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or
  fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for
  you to preserve."
Mahāpadesā sutta

The answer does not address the question which is about how scholars determine authenticity.

@Jayarava It depends on how you define a scholar. This is in Theravada perspective. There are learned people in this doctrine too.

@Jayarava Ahh you are asking for references! Here's one. Page 104. http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mission-accomplished.pdf

Yes. Great! A summary of this material, ca p.104-113 would have made an excellent answer to this question because it shows how Theravādin scholars have approached the question of authenticity in the past. Could you incorporate this into your answer do you think?

@Jayarava I'll try, probably during the weekend.

The trouble with the question is that it uses a very vague term: "authenticity". We don't really know what this means to the questioner. And it is likely that it means different things to different people.
From a scholars point of view, if authentic means that the texts are what they themselves say they are, the there are probably no authentic texts. If authentic means, texts that were accepted as authentic by a Buddhist tradition at some point, then almost everything written is authentic.
Not that authenticity is a trivial issue for Buddhists. One could go as far as to say that it is an obsession. But authenticity is not so much a part of the scholarly approach to texts. A scholar may try to pin down the provenance of a text, but whether knowing this makes a text authentic or not is probably not an issue for a scholar.
For example, I work on the Heart Sutra. Since Jan Nattier's 1992 article on it, the Heart Sutra is now widely regarded, by scholars though not religieux, as having been compiled in China from quotations from other sutras, mainly the 25,000 line Perfection of Wisdom text, in Kumārajīva's Chinese translation. This probably happened ca. 7th century. It was later translated into Sanskrit, and then added to leaving a short text and a long text.
For religieux the text is authentic because they saw it has having a Sanskrit "original" and because centuries of teaching lineages proclaimed it "authentic". Scholar's now think that Mahāyāna texts were composed in Middle-Indic and translated into Sanskrit in the 4th or 5th century (during the Gupta Empire the use of Sanskrit as a literary language was widespread in North India). So having a Sanskrit text no longer signifies authenticity. Having a Gāndhārī text is more likely to be considered a measure of antiquity and therefore authenticity.
On the other hand the Heart Sutra seems to an authentic product of the Buddhist milieu in 7th century China which combined the cult of Avalokiteśvara, with study of Perfection of Wisdom, and the use of magic spells for protection (Pāḷi parrita; Skt dhāraṇī).
Ironically the long Sanskrit Heart Sutra which has the traditional trappings of authenticity (eg. it begins एवं मया श्रुतं) is now seen as less authentic because it's apparent that the standard sutra beginning was added later. The short text is more authentic because it is closer to the original Chinese versions.
Until recently the Chinese version attributed to Xuanzang (T251) was considered more authentic, but Nattier cast doubt on the attribution so now it seems less authentic. Indeed the version attributed to Xuanzang (T251) or the version attributed to Kumārajīva (T250) can not have been the product of these men, and neither of them can have been the model for the extant Sanskrit version. So the original text, the most authentic text, is actually missing. No attempt has yet been made to reconstruct the original (though I think it ought to be possible). But then the question of how authentic a reconstructed text would be is a big one.
For more than 60 years the Sanskrit text, edited and published by Edward Conze in 1948 and revised in 1967, was considered the authentic Sanskrit Heart Sutra. Conze compared many manuscripts and tried to imagine what the author had intended. But Conze made a number of mistakes (one of which I identified and corrected in my 2015 article for the JOCBS). So Conze's edition, long treated as the authentic Heart Sutra must now considered rather inauthentic - indeed Conze's version is a badly edited version of a poor translation of a Chinese text.
It's apparent that authentic is a very difficult concept to pin down. What it might mean to a scholar is quite different from what it might mean to a religieux. A Theravādin will most likely not consider any Mahāyāna texts as authentic. But then most scholars don't find the Theravādin idea of "authentic" meaningful - it's wholly an insider perspective.
Authenticity is important to religious sectarians primary, In my opinion, because they are involved in a competition for resources with other sects (Buddhist and non-Buddhist). "Authenticity" is like a seal of approval. For lay Buddhists it is a means of ensuring maximum merit from generosity to religious organisations. For monastic Buddhists it helps to ensure their continued hegemony and control of resources. In terms of the study of texts none of this is very relevant. I can't be sure, but in eight published articles on Buddhist texts I don't think I have used the word authentic or any derivative of it. It's just not a very interesting concept.

Were the suttas taught by the Buddha? Were the suttas authentic? That's what I mean by authentic. Authenticity= How much a sutta appears to be the Buddha's own words   by the means we have to know this and by the skill and wisdom of the scholar.

When @Uilium said "comparing Chinese translations" he might have meant Āgamas for example like this comparison. Uilum you might use a tag like [tag:pali-canon] or [tag:early-buddhism] on your question[s].

@ChrisW yes, pali-Canon and the Agamas...I was too vague huh? Thanks :)

Check out the paper/book called "The Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts":
https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf
The short answer is that there are many ways spanning multiple disciplines that scholars use in an attempt to determine authenticity.
With that being said, scholars are beings, the same way the Buddha is a being. It's up to an individual to figure out who they wish to listen to and heed.
I think the Mahapadesa sutta found within the Mahaparinibbana sutta (DN 16) as shared by the individual above seems like the most reliable guide.
I also think what scholars say is definitely important, but secondary to this.
But again, it's up to the individual to voluntarily choose which individual or group to pay attention to and heed the most.


text:
When were the earliest Buddhist writings created
Buddha was born (according to Wikipedia) somewhere around 563 BCE to 480 BCE, and lived 80 years.
From what I have understood, no teachings that made it to this day, have been written down when he was alive.
What are the earliest scriptures (or other writings) that we know of, and when were they created?

possible duplicate: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9855/which-are-considered-to-be-the-oldest-suttas

It is likely so, but I'm not sure. I'm interested in actual dateings.

According to Theravada tradiation:

563 BCE - (Buddha) was born.
528 - Enlighten.
483 - Parinirvana.
483 - First council ,(After 3 month of parinirvana.) collected Dhamma as (Deega, Maggima, Sanuktha, Anguthara) Nikayas or Agamas and Vinaya.
Assign Bikkus('Banaka') for memorize and recite.
386 - Second council - separated Mahāsāṃghika and  Sthaviras(Theravāda) schools. six Abidhamma books, Niddasa, patisambidaMagga ,Jathaka and parivara were developed.
250 - 3rd Council   -( King Asoka's Era ) Vibhajjavāda 'Kathawatuppakarana'( 7th book of Abidhamma pitaka - Arguments and Explanations) create.
250 - Atthakatha or Commentaries, the original version of which is believed to have been taken over to Sri Lanka by Thera Mahinda, the missionary sent by Asoka, and translate to Sinhalese language("Hela Atuwa").
(180 - Greco-Buddhism Developed)
150 - "Milinda Pañha."  Dialog with king Milinda and Sage Nagasena.
29-17  Orally preserved (Pali/Pela)Dhamma was committed to write(in pali). During the Fourth (Theravada)Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the death of Gautama Buddha.
1 -67 CE -" Saddamma Pundareeka Sutta"(Mahayana).
78 -101 - 4th Council (Mahayana).
150-250 - Nagarjuna's -  Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
296 - Chinese translations of pali and sanskrit thipitaka.
372 -Korean thripitaka.
The traditional Theravādin (Mahavihārin) interpretation of the Pali Canon is given in a series of commentaries (Hela Ayuwa) covering nearly the whole Canon, Translate and compiled to pali language by Buddhaghosa (fl. 4th–5th century CE) and later monks, mainly on the basis of earlier materials(Hela Atuwa) now lost. Subcommentaries have been written afterward, commenting further on the Canon and its commentaries. The traditional Theravādin interpretation is summarized in Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga.
1954 -A Burmese monk named Vicittasara even learned the entire Canon by heart for the Sixth Council.
printed Editions.

More details

And when was it first written?

Some Commentaries were written around 400 BCE . Only Orally transmitted Original sayings were written on 29 BCE.

There is no external evidence for the Buddhist texts before Asoka. The evidence for Asoka's time is extremely limited - a few texts mentioned by name with no content. All dates in early Indian history are highly conjectural. There is for example no other evidence than Buddhist texts for if or when the Buddha lived, and that evidence has produced a number of different dates. A symposium on the dates of the Buddha in 1991 concluded that he lived ca 480-400 BCE. In 1992 Richard Gombrich independently reasoned from the texts a very similar date - see Dating the Buddha A Red Herring Revealed. These are the currently accepted dates amongst most scholars. It looks like Wikipedia is drawing on the traditional Theravādin date, which is only accepted within the Theravāda sect and no longer accepted by non-sectarian scholars.
The dates of Asoka are reasonably certain, since four Bactrian kings are mentioned in the edicts and these can be aligned with physical evidence of these kings (such as coins) in Bactria. So we know that Asoka flourished in the mid-3rd century BCE (ca. 250 BCE). On Asoka and his dates, see Charles Allen's excellent book Asoka. Similarly, in the texts the Magadhan Empire has yet to expand beyond Magadha, and it's future capital at Patna (Trad. Pataliputta) is still a small frontier town of little significance. Suggesting a time before the Moryan Dynasty founded by Asoka's grandfather Candragupta - so probably at least a century before Asoka.
Less precise, but of considerable importance is the beginning of the second urbanisation in the Ganges Valley ca. 7th century BCE. Evidence for this is extensive, for example, in the form of the ruins of walled cities at Rajgir and Shravasti (See Romila Thapar's Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations).
In the texts the Magadhan Empire is not yet an empire and Pataliputta is unimportant. Early Buddhist texts do not mention Asoka, so we assume that they predate him, at least by a century, ca 350 BCE. The texts do mention well established walled cities so we assume that the antedate them. If these assumptions are valid (and not every scholar agrees that they are) this gives us a range of ca. 600-350 for the composition of the Buddhist texts. This is at least not inconsistent with most of the dates derived from the texts, which place the Buddha somewhere in the middle of this range.
The texts show considerable evidence of having composed orally and existing as a widely dispersed oral literature for a considerable time before being collected and written down. See for example Anālayo's article Oral Dimensions of Pāli Discourses: Pericopes, other Mnemonic Techniques and the Oral Performance Context. This is consistent with the Sri Lankan chronicle Mahāvaṃsa which asserts that the texts were not written down in Sri Lanka until about the first century BCE during the reign of King Vaṭṭagāmini. Writing texts down in India is less certain, but probably began around the same time.
The earliest physical evidence of early Buddhist texts are birch bark manuscripts from what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan (ancient Gandhāra). One or two texts are carbon14 dated to the 1st century BCE, and a few more to the first two centuries CE. The oldest Pali text is a small manuscript written on gold from the 5th or 5th century CE.

Are you saying there were written texts (i.e. that texts were written or that the texts were written) in Asoka's time, which was only 100-150 years A.B.? Does that contradict (by about three centuries) the unsourced claim in Wikipedia that, "Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later"?

I've tried to clarify in the answer. The "texts" were composed and preserved orally, as a part of a story-telling tradition and not written down until the first century BCE or possibly a little bit earlier - a century or two after Asoka and about 300 years after the death of the Buddha.

How is the date known for the earliest Pali text on gold?


text:
How sacrosanct is the "source material" of Buddhism?
In this answer to my question about why we keep referring to antiquated old parables and similes, Inzenity wrote,

"The scriptures are part of the teachings, the source of the teachings. It makes sense that to learn the teachings, what you call true Buddhism, they must go to the source material."

The source material is not really straight from Buddha's pen, is it; nor is it even from the pens of his contemporaries or his disciples. What anybody may call source material was first committed to writing many centuries after the death of Gautam Buddha.
Isn't that's a bit like a whole bunch of us on this forum sitting down to commit to writing what was said by some guru who lived 10 generations ago, after about 500 years of oral transmission at least?
And then all that was translated from Pali into English -- possibly not in a single step either. And in between, there were commentaries in many languages, and many diverse traditions of speech and thought...
So, is it really "source material", just because it has bits and pieces of Pali tradition and ancient similes attached to it, imparting a certain quaint orientalism to the whole conglomerate? And if this body of work somehow acquired bits and pieces of Nordic or Mayan similes, parables etc, then would it stop suddenly being "Buddhist source material"?
Inzenity also wrote (about use of original explanations and logical arguments, as against the old well-worn ones from various Buddhist texts),

When they go to another person's teachings, are they still Buddhists or followers of the new guru? New religions are created this way.

True that! Being original about it may mean that we may drift away from Buddhist teachings, and end up starting new religions or, alternatively, following new religions.
Are we hanging on to quaint old parables and similes and Pali aphorisms translated painfully into English, for the luxury of calling ourselves Buddhists, instead of, say, "Robertists" or "Umeshists" or "followers of Osho Rajneesh"?
How sure are we that we haven't unknowingly gone to "another person's teaching" already -- those persons being numerous disciples and commentarists who willy-nilly added their own substantial philosophical DNA to Buddha's teachings, or alternatively, excised crucial teachings from Buddha's body of thought?
What is Buddhism about, anyway? Is Buddhism about learning precepts about the nature of existence "at the feet of a master" as it were? Or is it about a fearless enquiry into the nature of existence, guided by numerous masters who broadly follow Buddha's school of thought, but not enchained to the philosophies of these masters?

This sounds a lot like opinion posing as a question... are you really looking for an answer, or are you just trying to promote your own ideas? I'm afraid the latter is more likely to lead to argumentation rather than conclusive answers, in which case this site is ill-suited for such activity.

@yuttadhammo -- Guilty as charged. I do of course hold many opinions, and I am of course trying to promote my own ideas, and looking for intelligent and well-reasoned arguments. Presumably, I am not alone in such an activity. and presumably, such an activity is at least as legitimate on this forum as posing questions to which there are definitive answers. Am I wrong in so presuming?

@yuttadhammo I opened a new meta-topic, "May I post an opinion posing a question?" (so people can discuss this further on meta instead of here).

I think there are some very good and apposite questions here. I find I meet two kinds of Buddhists online. Those committed to the idea that the Pāḷi Canon is something like the Bible, the words of the Buddha and thus an ultimate authority. These kind are mostly, but not only, Theravādin Buddhists. To a lesser extent one also sees this kind of ideological commitment from Mādhyamikas about Nāgārjuna as well. The second kind take the opposite view. That the texts are worthless and that apart from the some of the practices that there is nothing worth saving.
There is a kind of middle way. No modern historian treats the Pāḷi Canon as historically accurate any more. Apologetics which argue for the authenticity of the suttas tend to come from establishment figures within one or other Theravādin movement. Thanissaro and Sujato have both written apologetics in recent times for example. But this is what we expect of men who have made a strong commitment to a Buddhist sect (especially one which involves life-long chastity).
However many of the stories in the texts are still of considerable interest for their insights into the historical development of Buddhism and the changes that Buddhist doctrines undergo over time. I am particularly interested in these kinds of changes. And of course some stories are timeless. This is why we preserve and retell stories from the distant past: the Mahābharat in India and the Greek myths in Europe are good examples. Good story telling is timeless and fictional characters no less moving and educative for being unreal.
It's widely acknowledged, by scholars at least, that Buddhism is syncretic from the first evidence we have of it. The earliest records of Buddhism show influence from a number of other cultures not limited to Brahmanism, Jainism, local animistic cults, and Zoroastrianism (the latter discovery is relatively old, my own contribution to the field has been to put the case more systematically). Such syncretism continues throughout the life of Buddhism in India and outside it, right down to the present. With more or less success. Usually the process involves subordinating the assimilated material to Buddhism in some explicit fashion, though sometimes the process is implicit, and often it is transparent to Buddhists (e.g. the Vedic myth in the Agañña Sutta quoted time and again as a "Buddhist" creation story).
That said I think the identity of "Buddhist" is meaningful for many people in many ways. The history of Buddhism is not one in which everyone is a full-time practitioner devoted to awakening. Such people were and will continue to be relatively rare. Most of us aspire to more than we can achieve. This does not invalidate the aspiration or the achievement. Most of us require positive conditions to flourish, and a positive experience of Buddhist community can contribute to that. As such membership of a Buddhist group is a necessary facet of life as a Buddhist for many of us. And part of group membership is conformity to group norms, including taking on the jargon and mythology of the group. Being able to recite popular stories is a mark of membership.
That said I think there is a problem in Buddhism with people not correctly assessing their own limitations. The wide availability of Buddhist texts to lay people with no training in linguistics or critical thinking has led to a glut of uncritical opinions. The internet has only exacerbated the trend. Some of us have very limited experience of living a Buddhist life, but full access to multiple translations of Buddhists texts. With no basis for assessing the value of translations or other sources of information, they tend to be cited indiscriminately (to support views). I notice it is routine in this website to cite Thanissaro's translations, which happen to be the easiest to get hold of because they are online for free. But Thanissaro is an eccentric translator, to say the least. All his translations need to be carefully assessed before being cited - but they never are. I would put Access to Insight on a par with Wikipedia as a source. Use with caution.
It is good to see some hard questions being asked of Buddhists.

Do you have any evidence to support these claims: "No modern historian treats the Pāḷi Canon as historically accurate any more." and "It's widely acknowledged, by scholars at least, that Buddhism is syncretic from the first evidence we have of it."

Also, do you have any instance of a Thanissaro translation, e.g., being significantly different in meaning from some other translator, e.g., Bodhi or just any example of a translation in which you think the meaning in Pali is significantly distorted?

For the first comment you can see my published works. For the second Thanissaro translates "dukkha" as "stress". To the best of my knowledge he is the only one to do so. Dukkha does not mean stress. See any good Dictionary. Now we've dealt with the trivia.

Is the PTS a good dictionary? Its definion of dukkha includes: unspecific (not "too specialised" or "too limited"), "equally mental & physical", and not "too strong" -- the opposite of sukha ("ease").

The PTSD must be used with caution. It was written in a hurry and by non-experts in lexicography. It is far from definitive (one of my first published articles concerned an incorrect definition of a word in PTSD). Margaret Cone's Dictionary of Pali is far more authoritative, though as yet incomplete (d is covered). But in the end dictionaries only get you so far. A dictionary is no substitute for wide reading in Pāli.

@Jayarava and where would one find your relevant published works? Yes, translating 'dukkha' as 'stress' is, as you say, 'eccentric' but I don't know that it makes a practical difference. Are there answers on this site that cite Thanissaro and his translation makes the answer bad/inaccurate?

@Jayarava -- Thank you for a completely honest answer. I am floored by your clarity.

@ChrisW - Dukkha means plain and simple Sadness or Sorrow. Sukkha means ease. I say this not as a scholar, but as a native speaker of Kannada, Hindi and Gujarati, with a working knowledge of Marathi. So, that's three north Indian languages based on the Devnagari script and directly rooted in Sanskrit, and one south Indian language based on the Brahmi script (but with a strong Sanskrit influence).
To translate Dukkha as "stress" is, in my humble opinion, stretching the meaning of the word.

@KrishnarajRao The PTSD says, "sorrow too exclusively mental, but in some connections they have to be used in default of any more exact rendering". Buddhist definitions of dukkha say that physical pain is dukkha too, and English-speakers wouldn't normally say that pain is "sorrow". Maybe the sense of dukkha has changed (so that your modern understanding of that word is anachronistic); or your translation of it into English is simplistic; or English-speakers misunderstand pain in saying it isn't sorrow plain and simple?

@KrishnarajRao Sorry, but speaking Hindi or any modern Indian language gives you very little insight into Pāḷi. You are at least 1500 years separated in time. Hindi is another language. Script is entirely irrelevant here also. In the case of dukkha the meaning has shifted, and the Buddhist context uses the word differently from most Hindi speakers. Most importantly in Buddhism dukkha means "all unenlightened experience" - including the hedonically pleasant!

@ChrisW This is one of those words where the PTSD is only reliable to a point. A far better source in this case is the book Early Buddhism: A New Approach, by Sue Hamilton, which explores the meaning of the word at some length. For example sukkhavedanā or "pleasant sensations" are also, in the broadest sense, dukkha! PTSD doesn't cope with that observation.

For example: Nāññatra dukkhā sambhoti, nāññaṃ dukkhā nirujjhatī’’ti (SN i.136) "Nothing other than dukkha arises, nothing other than dukkha ceases." This does not make sense if dukkha simply means "misery" or "sorrow". Because also we have experiences like ānanda, pamoda, pīti, sanutuṭṭha, sukha sukhita, somanassa.

@ChrisW -- Physical pain usually, but not always, causes mental pain or sorrow. The exceptions may be the pain that one seeks and consciously tolerates, such as the pain felt by bodybuilders, marathoners, etc. or even the pain of giving birth.
Yes, the word dukkha is colloquially used even for physical pain in many Indian languages, but dukkha usually indicates sorrow or sadness on the mental plane.

@Jayarava - "In Buddhism dukkha means "all unenlightened experience" - including the hedonically pleasant." Yup that! May I suggest that ancient Buddhist & Brahmin monks were acculturated to have a gothic outlook? They made existential angst the centrepoint of their religious discourse, and this angst was an absolute, unquestionable given! They always prayed for liberation from the earthly existence a.k.a. "cycle of birth and death".
"Punarapi Jananam, punarapi maranam, punarapi janani jathare shayanam..." Again to be born, again to die, again to lie in the mother's womb..." Oh the agony!

@Jayarava - Agreed, being separated in time by 1500 years makes it impossible to step into the shoes of ancients who spoke of life itself as dukkha. Back then, life was indeed "suffering" (another meaning of dukkha?) in a very literal sense. Thanks to huge improvements in living conditions, healthcare and life-expectancy, today's common man (with some exceptions) may have a less dim view of life.
If the Buddha were alive and in our midst, do you suppose that he would refer to existence as dukkha? Or might he have referred to it as something else -- say, a lifelong journey of learning maybe?

(SN i.136) Perhaps you meant S i 134 or is that a different numbering system? I think that's referring to her "being" as a saṅkhāra c.f. the "three marks of existence" a.k.a. "all compound things are subject to decay".

In Indian languages, dukkha may mean sadness or sorrow. But in Buddhism, dukkha is a special technical term that is similar to the Hindu term samsara. For e.g. "Sabbe sankhara dukkha", the second Mark of Existence, states that all conditioned things are suffering.

SN is Saṃyutta Nikāya to distinguish it from SA the Saṃyuktāgama and SNA the Saṃyutta Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā. The PTS notation is from the 19th century and didn't really anticipate the Āgama texts becoming popular a century later. Sometimes the Burmese Ed. which I use is a bit off in their PTS numbering. The quote is from the last verse of that poem which almost no one ever bothers to read. I'm not sure how your comment relates to the defn. dukkha.

@ruben2020 And what is meant by Saṅkhārā in this context do you think? Or in the context of the quote from the Dhammapada?

Sankhara is "conditioned things" meaning everything that depends on something else e.g. trees depending on water and sunlight, even your free will is conditioned by past experiences. In fact, it boils down to everything except what Buddha defines as Nirvana. These things are all impermanent or always changing (anicca).

Well that's what the books tell you. But you won't find this definition in the Pāḷi Canon.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_43.html

Exactly. The definition from a book rather than the Suttas. But at least Bodhi manages an accurate definition "we can see that the sankharas are the kammically active volitions responsible for generating rebirth" - nothing to do with trees! Saṅkhārās are mental events. Mental events are what arise in dependence on causes. Trees have nothing to do with it.

In the same essay, he writes, "The third major domain in which the word sankhara occurs is as a designation for all conditioned things. In this context the word has a passive derivation, denoting whatever is formed by a combination of conditions; whatever is conditioned, constructed, or compounded. In this sense it might be rendered simply "formations," without the qualifying adjective. As bare formations, sankharas include all five aggregates, not just the fourth. The term also includes external objects and situations such as mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink"

But the last bit is not from the suttas.

Contrary to popular misapprehension, Buddhism is not a cult of "source material". It is not actually the case that the point of Buddha's message has been lost, and now generations after generations of practitioners try to deduce it from texts.
Buddhism is a living tradition, that at large has never lost the path. Sure, there were some misunderstandings here and there over the centuries, small and large. In fact, every student goes through the phase of gross confusion, until they hopefully see the light.
As any area of human activity, such as politics or academia, Buddhism has layers, and if you explore the populations of practicing representatives, you will always find a wide gamut of sophistication, from the most superficial to the most profound.
All this is to say that the texts are not alpha and omega, interpretation and application are. The texts do have their place though:

They create a structure, the game rules, within which the practice may take place, and
They dress the naked truth in some feathers to make it more presentable to a normal human practitioner. There is some charm in the ancient mystique, don't you find?

In what you say, I see a statement of faith when you say that "Buddhism is a living tradition that at large has never lost the path". Considering that Buddhism has multiple branches and sub-branches, with many seeming contradictions, I think it takes a huge amount of faith to say that. While agreeing with you on the "living tradition", I just wonder whether the  teachers and followers who constitute the living tradition are doing their own thing and calling it by the name of Buddhism.
I agree about texts creating structure & game rules, and the charm of ancient mystique.

@KrishnarajRao I wonder, maybe you could say the same about "Mathematics" (which has also been studied for millennia).

@KrishnarajRao they are just different metaphors, only contradictory at literal level, not when you know what they refer to.

@ChrisW -- Yup, Math illustrates what a "living tradition" is all about, thanks! We imbibe, practice and discuss the principles of math without ever quoting "masters" such as Aryabhatta, Brahmagupta, Ibn Al'Banna, Euclid, Apollonius, etc. The math textbooks are about math principles of multiplication, square roots, etc., and not about hallowed words of wisdom handed down by the math masters -- great though they undoubtedly were!
Any discussion on math is never about whether one follows "Arabic Mathematics", or whether one favours the "Greek School of Thought".
Significant, no?

@KrishnarajRao I'm sorry but I was taught, at school, Pythagoras' theorem and Newtonian mechanics, Ohm's law, Maxwell's equations (which I've since forgotten), Einstein's relativity, Heisenburg's uncertainty, Euclid's geometry, etc., etc. If you ask about "Buddhism" I think it's not too surprising if some people try to recount the teachings of the historical Buddha, to the extent they're known. There are even some apparent contradictions (Euclidean versus non-Euclidean, Newtonian versus relativistic), but "only contradictory at literal level".

@ChrisW - Scientific and Math laws don't lean on their discoverer for authority and veracity. For instance, Pythagoras' is given credit for the theorem, but today, millions of mathematicians can prove (or reconstruct) Pythagoras' theorem from scratch. If you and I have an argument about Ohm's law, you are unlikely to say, "The great Georg Ohms said so himself, and it says so right here in this book translated from German... and these are his exact words!" It's more likely that you will just set up an experiment and directly prove that current and voltage are directly proportional".

And how is it different with Buddha's point that attachment is the root of suffering?

Science has universal laws that are verifiable experimentally. Buddha's Three Marks of Existence and Four Noble Truths are also similarly universal laws, that are verifiable by insight and enlightenment. In my opinion, vipassana (insight meditation) could be seen as an experiment to verify Dependent Origination (pratityasamutpada).

@AndreiVolkov - Ok, let us try to apply Buddha's point to, say, a couple that has been happily married for the last 50 years. Are they attached to each other? Yup! Are they suffering more than, say, another couple who broke up in their second year of marriage? I would say not!
So, would you recommend that the happily aging couple should stop being attached to each other, and go live separately? I wouldn't.
Unless we apply some very esoteric meanings to the words "attachment" and "suffering", Buddha's doctrine is not immediately self-evident.

Sure, because attachment is not the cause of suffering, it is its root. When suffering is present, it depends on attachment as it's necessary condition, but if there's attachment, suffering may not come until it's material cause (vs. Psychological root!) comes in effect. In your example, is until one of the two dies.

Buddhist scriptures are not as sacrosanct as in the way the Quran is where the Quran is divinely guaranteed to be incorruptible till the end of time and cannot be questioned. However, at the same time, there is a distinction between what is Buddhavacana (words of the Buddha) and what isn't. The Buddha's own stand on this matter is reflected in the Kalama Sutta where he says about discerning teachings:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are
  blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities,
  when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you
  should enter & remain in them.'

It appears that Buddhists of the Theravada tradition do take the Tipitaka and especially the Buddha's teachings in the Sutta Pitaka very seriously for study, while Buddhists of some other traditions, especially Zen, may focus more on practice, rather than conceptual study. But this is not to say that the Zen practitioner does not have any scriptural study whatsoever.
From the perspective of syncretism, Buddhism is not as syncretic as Hinduism but is more syncretic than Christianity or Islam. Hinduism has soaked up very diverse and even conflicting schools of thought and modes of worship, under its vast umbrella, as long as the Vedas, Brahman, karma and reincarnation are not rejected. On the other hand, Islam and Christianity are intolerant, sometimes even violently, to those who diverge from the mainstream.
Buddhism of the times after the Buddha's parinibbana, on the other hand, takes the middle path of practising syncretism to the extent that sectarianism is tolerated, but within a minimum boundary of framework. You can take a look at the situation of sectarianism among the Early Buddhist Schools and of course the later traditions of Mahayana and Vajrayana. During the time of the Buddha of course, creating schisms was strongly reprimanded and is a reason for expulsion from the sangha, showing the Buddha's own preference for the sangha to remain united under the same dhamma and vinaya.
I mentioned that there are different preferences to practice and conceptual study, different sects etc. and also different sets of canons between traditions, but there is definitely a minimum boundary of framework by which any teachings, texts or sects are accepted as coming under Buddhism. Falling outside this boundary means definite rejection. This is analogous to the Christian Nicene Creed or Islam's Five Pillars of Practice and Six Pillars of Faith.

The Four Noble Truths
The Noble Eightfold Path
The Triple Gem
The Three Marks of Existence
Dependent Origination
Kamma and Rebirth

The Buddha's own stand on the matter is found in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble
  eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first...
  second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner,
  non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline
  where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the
  first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble
  eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here
  there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth
  order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And
  if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."

The Noble Eightfold Path is like a summary that contains the whole boundary of framework for the "right teachings" and the Buddha is fine with other doctrines and disciplines, taught by others, as long as it is compliant with the Noble Eightfold Path. And as far as I can see, the main traditions of Buddhism are definitely compliant, though appearing divergent on the details of concepts and practice.
In fact, if I were to reduce the doctrinal framework to the bare minimum, it would be:

The Four Noble Truths
The Three Marks of Existence
Dependent Origination
Kamma

When we compare Buddhism to other traditions of India (Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism), it is clear that anatta separates them from Buddhism. But anatta is common between the various Buddhist traditions.

There are a few reasons.

There's the religious aspect. To most Buddhists, Buddhism is a religion and the texts are sacred.  They are so sacred, that simply chanting them is believed to bring merit. So you've got people chanting Pali (which they don't understand) in the belief that merely saying the words will bring supernatural benefit.
Even outside of religion people venerate older texts. For instance, people still read the works of Plato today, even though he was wrong about a lot. Schools require reading literature from hundreds of years back, even though there's a lot of excellent literature that's been released since. Others insist on reading original works from authors (like Kant) even though the works are widely acknowledged to be poorly written and even though excellent third party sources exist.
The Buddha was believed to be enlightened, and since he got there, he's seen as the best source of information on that subject.  Well certain texts are believed to be closer to his words (e.g.: because they're closer to his time or part of a school that claims it's closer to his vision, etc...) so by their perceived proximity to the source, they are seen as more accurate.


text:
A thought-experiment about the importance of Buddhist traditions
Suppose a leading Buddhist figure -- say a well-known Tibetan monk -- were to suddenly start displaying cultural behavior appropriate to other religious faiths. For instance, suppose this monk were to start performing namaz like a Muslim five times a day, and frequently make the sign-of-the-cross gesture during conversations.
Would this result in loss of rank, social standing and credibility in his own circles? Or would this cause others around him to start looking up to him? What's your opinion?
Are Buddhist cultural habits and traditional ways of dress, behavior, speech etc. important for making spiritual progress?

This question is attracting a lot of positive and negative votes and close votes. I've asked a question on meta to dig into why this question is provoking such a reaction

Would this result in loss of rank, social standing and credibility in his own circles? Or would this cause others around him to start looking up to him? What's your opinion?

It would undoubtedly result in loss of all of these. Particularly in the case of adopting the rites and rituals of a theistic religion. I'm trying to think of an example where this actually happened, but cannot. Nor can I find any examples on the internet. Lots of converts to Buddhism, very few high profile converts from Buddhism.
We might take the example of the conversion of the British academic Paul Williams from Tibetan Buddhism (back) to Catholicism. Williams is the notable author of a standard text on Mahāyāna Buddhism, which is now in a second edition and still used in many universities around the world. He had practised Buddhism in the Tibetan Gelug tradition.
This caused quite a stir when it happened, fanned by his writing a book and at least one article about the reasons for his conversion. Of course it did not affect his standing in academia which is based on his published works on Buddhism. Buddhist responses mostly seemed to be couched in polite terms, but to be quite dismissive of William's understanding of Buddhism. One comment which stood out from NewBuddhist.com was

This exact topic was raised on another Buddhist forum and provoked more anger and rejection than almost any other, with the possible exception of vegetarianism, a topic which reduces some of those who value ahimsa to homicidal rage... In short Williams was seen as a turncoat, a traitor...a threat.

And remember that Williams was not a religious leader, simply a moderately prominent academic. If we were talking about a Buddhist leader apparently converting I think this would cause a great deal of upset.
The second part of your question is easier to answer

Are Buddhist cultural habits and traditional ways of dress, behavior, speech etc. important for making spiritual progress?

The simple answer is "no". And the early Buddhists seem to have been aware of this. A number of Pāli texts admonish that a robe and a bald head do not make a bhikkhu. A bhikkhu is someone who exemplifies Buddhist virtues. See for example Dhammapada vs 264-266; e.g.

na muṇḍakena samaṇo, abbato alikaṃ bhaṇaṃ.
  icchālobhasamāpanno, samaṇo kiṃ bhavissati. | Dhp 264|
He is not a practitioner because he is bald.
  He is not a preacher who is immoral and lies.
  How will he become a practitioner,
  Who is given over to desire and acquisition?  [My translation]

+1 as well as the middle of this answer (which helps to justify the beginning) I like the way you say, "It would undoubtedly result in loss of all of these" and "a robe and a bald head do not make a bhikkhu".

You said "I'm trying to think of an example where this actually happened, but cannot" but there are some historical examples of people being disowned for departing from actual rules (like, for example, getting married).

Firstly, Buddhist monks are subject to rules. The Theravada monk has to follow the 227 Patimokkha rules. Of course, for other traditions, it may be different.
Some of these rules can be quite detailed like the following:

[12.] I will not go [sit] laughing loudly in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

[14.] I will go [sit] (speaking) with a lowered voice in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

[16.] I will not go [sit] swinging my body in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

[18.] I will not go [sit] swinging my arms in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

[20.] I will not go [sit] swinging my head in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

Sex, murder, theft and false representation of one's spiritual progress constitutes the worst transgression (parajika offenses) that results in the monk's ipso facto expulsion.
The rules regarding attire:

[2.] I will wear the lower robe [upper robe] wrapped around (me): a training to be observed.

[10.] I will not go [sit] with robes hitched up in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

As for your example of a monk praying like a Muslim or Christian, we must wonder what is his intention. If he is worshipping God, then that would be contradictory to the Buddhist teaching that there is no Supreme Creator God, hence the well known monk's followers might leave him. But this is only my speculation.

Thanks. I wish you would explore the thought process of the last paragraph. What if there is no explicit bowing to a Supreme God figure? For instance, if a Buddhist monk were to dress like a muslim, sit for meditation in mosques, and observe Ramzan fasts, but without worshipping a God? Does he face excommunication? And if so, why? What is the rationale?

If he wears some other clothes apart from his monastic robes, that would be a minor offense according to the rules if I'm not mistaken. If he were to meditate in a mosque, I can't see what would be wrong in that, apart from the possibility of annoying some muslims

You have asked two questions here... one about "spiritual progress" and the other about "excommunication" / "status". I can hazard a guess from the Theravāda tradition.
Spiritual Progress
In the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN 16) the Buddha said:

"In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats.

In other words, spiritual progress depends on the Noble Eightfold Path, not on the kinds of superficial things that you mentioned.
Excommunication / Status
In the Theravāda tradition, "excommunication" only happens in the case of the four defeaters (pārājika): incelibacy, theft, killing, false claim of attainments.
The next most serious offenses are the twelve offenses requiring a formal meeting (saṅghādisesa). Once a monk confesses to one of these offenses during the uposatha ceremony, the monk is "put under probation" (some reduced freedoms) until the probation is lifted at a subsequent uposatha ceremony (in other words, the probation can be two weeks, four weeks, six weeks, etc.).
A monk's  "status" is based on the number of vassa that they have completed (date that they were ordained).
Though the behaviours that you describe would certainly be strange for a monk, they do not seem to contravene either the pārājika or saṅghādisesa so they would not legally impact the monk.
When Faxian visited Sri Lanka around 400AD, he reported seeing Bodhisatta worship happening alongside traditional Theravāda practices within the same temple. It is not difference in practice that splits the Sangha, it is difference in Vinaya.


text:
Question about how to generate more motivation to meditate.
I just wanted to hopefully get some ideas on how some of the fellow users of this site motivate themselves to meditate on a more frequent basis. What ultimately motivates each one of you to continue meditating? The good feelings of samadhi or the tranquility of insight? I'm struggling with staying with the object of meditation as my mind is extremely restless. Anyways, this is my first time here so I'll leave it at that. Thanks in advance!

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

It's really important to do wise and healthy things even if they take a bit of effort to get the ball rolling.  Very fortunately, we can use habit to overcome our habits, which is something very beautiful.
Personally, on days when I do not formally sit I cultivate many aspirations and cast the thought (joyously) "How good it would be to sit and meditate, to cultivate wisdom and insight, to perfect samadhi."
Meditation is not the only branch of the Eightfold path as was historically presented by Shakyamuni Buddha, so keeping all the folds in balance will help with your meditation, and vice versa.
The purpose of meditation is to uncover these enlightened qualities that are within us all.
On a mundane, physical level meditation strengthens the density of the cortical structure of the brain.
Please read about the methods of calm abiding, insight, and the altruistic motivation, because knowing what those are can really help nudge our patterned-ways into open ways.  In general, reflecting on the many benefits and really making a strong wish to spend more time and regular time meditating will be great.
It has been taught that beings should seek enlightenment like trying to put out a fire on their heads.  It's true!  Based on how well we can see the value of our present condition (!) and how well we understand what we can accomplish through practice, the more clear it will be the need for meditation in our daily life, until the blurry edge between formal and off-the-cushion becomes such a natural and melodious flow that we will wonder why we had not been doing it this way the whole time.

In his book 'Good to Great', author Jim Collins describes how to build a great business using an analogy of a flywheel.

Right now, the flywheel is at a standstill. To get it moving, you make
  a tremendous effort. You push with all your might, and finally you get
  the flywheel to inch forward. After two or three days of sustained
  effort, you get the flywheel to complete one entire turn. You keep
  pushing, and the flywheel begins to move a bit faster. It takes a lot
  of work, but at last the flywheel makes a second rotation. You keep
  pushing steadily. It makes three turns, four turns, five, six. With
  each turn, it moves faster, and then—at some point, you can’'t say
  exactly when—you break through. The momentum of the heavy wheel kicks
  in your favor. It spins faster and faster, with its own weight
  propelling it. You aren't pushing any harder, but the flywheel is
  accelerating, its momentum building, its speed increasing. -- Source: See the
  section titled 'How change does happen'

This concept works very well with meditation also.
One way to generate motivation is to think of your current effort as the necessary labor to get the flywheel moving until it works in your favor and becomes second nature.

I just wanted to hopefully get some ideas on how some of the fellow users of this site motivate themselves to meditate on a more frequent basis.

Sometimes motivation comes in the form of doing a thorough job. Say if you sit for meditation trying be mindful of the breath and you cannot then this might be a demotivator. The best is to switch to perhaps insight meditation. Mostly motivation come through overcoming the hindrances. For more on this see: Nīvaraṇa by Piya Tan.
Also a motivator would be experiencing some positive results. Do you feel less stressful and unhappy than before, but chasing after positive results can set you back by developing restless-worry and even doubt when you feel progress is lacking.

What ultimately motivates each one of you to continue meditating?

The knowledge that you are doing a good job and also some insight to inspire faith. You should feel glad and happy (pamojja) about what you are doing and progress. This is what will keep you on track. Upanisa Sutta contains a path on how to get to liberation through faith.

The good feelings of samadhi or the tranquility of insight? I'm struggling with staying with the object of meditation as my mind is extremely restless.

(Yuga,naddha) Paṭipadā Sutta mentions either one (insight or calm) can develop before the other. Let it take its natural cause.
When doing breath meditation you have to keep bringing the object of your meditation to the breath by continuously reviewing if your mind has wandered away or not even when it has not. Knowing and Seeing by The Venerable Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw, p45 give 4 methods which you can use to keep focus, though this mentions in the context of calming the breath is is valid even before you come to this stage. Also have a look at: ANAPANASATI - MINDFULNESS WITH BREATHING Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners by BUDDHADASA BHIKKHU.

Anyways, this is my first time here so I'll leave it at that.

Hopefully this is helpful and you would keep coming to the site as also do not feel shy to ask question.