text:
What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?
Among the many schools and traditions, what core teachings are shared by all Buddhists?

There is an existent reference to the similarities between Theravāda & Mahāyāna which I will cite:
(I think it also applies to Vajrayāna although I may be wrong in this regard.)

Whatever our sects, denominations or systems, as Buddhists we all accept the
  Buddha as our Master who gave us the Teaching.
We all take refuge in the Triple Jewel: the Buddha, our Teacher; the Dhamma, his
  teaching; and the Sangha, the Community of holy ones. In other words, we take
  refuge in the Teacher, the Teaching and the Taught.
Whether Theravada or Mahayana, we do not believe that this world is created and
  ruled by a god at his will.
Following the example of the Buddha, our Teacher, who is embodiment of Great
  Compassion and Great Wisdom, we consider that
  the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without
  discrimination and to work for their good, happiness and peace; and to develop
  wisdom leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth.
We accept the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha, namely, Dukkha, the fact
  that our existence in this world is in predicament, is impermanent, imperfect,
  unsatisfactory, full of conflict; Samudaya, the fact that this state of affairs is due
  to our egoistic selfishness based on the false idea of self; Nirodha, the fact that
  there is definitely the possibility of deliverance, liberation, freedom from this
  predicament by the total eradication of the egoistic selfishness; and Magga, the
  fact that this liberation can be achieved through the Middle Path which is eight-
  fold, leading to the perfection of ethical conduct (sila), mental discipline
  (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña).
We accept the universal law of cause and effect taught in the Paticcasamuppada
  (Skt. pratityasamutpada; Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination), and
  accordingly we accept that everything is relative, interdependent and interrelated
  and nothing is absolute, permanent and everlasting in this universe.
We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned
  things (samkhara) are impermanent (anicca) and imperfect and unsatisfactory
  (dukkha), and all conditioned and unconditioned things (dhamma) are without self (anatta).
We accept the Thirty-seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment
  (bodhipakkhiyadhamma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha
  leading to Enlightenment, namely,

Four Forms of Presence of Mindfulness (Pali: satipatthana; Skt. smrtyupasthana);
Four Right Efforts (Pali. sammappadhana; Skt. samyakpradhana);
Four Bases of Supernatural Powers (Pali. iddhipada; Skt. rddhipada);
Five Faculties (indriya: Pali. saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi, panna; Skt. sraddha, virya, smrti, samadhi, prajna);
Five Powers (bala, same five qualities as above);
Seven Factors of Enlightenment (Pali. bojjhanga; Skt. bobhyanga);
Eight-fold Noble Path (Pali. ariyamagga; Skt. aryamarga).

There are three ways of attaining Bodhi or Enlightenment according to the ability
  and capacity of each individual: namely, as a Sravaka (disciple), as a
  Pratyekabuddha (Individual Buddha) and as a Samyaksambuddha (Perfectly and
  Fully Enlightened Buddha). We accept if as the highest, noblest and most heroic
  to follow the career of a Boddhisattva and to become a Samyksambuddha in order
  to save others. But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths.
  In fact, the Sandhinirmocana-sutra, a well-known important Mahayana sutra,
  clearly and emphatically says that those who follow the line of Sravaka-yana
  (Vehicle of Disciples) or the line of Pratyekabuddha-yana (Vehicle of Individual
  Buddhas) or the line of Tathagatas (Mahayana) attain the supreme Nirvana by the
  same Path, and that for all of them there is only one Path of Purification
  (visuddhi-marga) and only one Purification (visuddhi) and no second one, and
  that they are not different paths and different purifications, and that Sravakayana
  and Mahayana constitute One Vehicle One Yana (eka-yana) and not distinct and
  different vehicles or yanas.
We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the ways
  of life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and
  rituals, ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions
  should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

-One Vehicle for Peace by Ven. Walpola Sri Rahula, (December 1–7, 1981)

Personally, I don't believe in the Four Bases of Supernatural Powers.  AFAIC, there are no supernatural powers.

I understand. Sometimes they are also translated as Four Steps to Prosperity\Success\Growth. Although in some contexts of the early texts, the word iddhi is certainly related to psychic abilities\wonders\miracles.

As well as the list which is quoted in Unrul3r's answer there are, also, three other lists included on Wikipedia's Basic points unifying Theravāda and Mahāyāna article.

A less canonical list was written by Christmas Humphreys,

In 1945 he drafted the Twelve Principles of Buddhism for which he obtained the approval of all the Buddhist sects in Japan (including the Shin Sect which was not associated with Olcott's common platform) of the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand and leading Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Myanmar, China and Tibet.

Here for example is a link to the Twelve Principles of Buddhism
By Christmas Humphreys.
They include (I summarize, see a reference for the more-complete text):

Self salvation is for any man the immediate task. (Parable of the Arrow)
The first fact of existence is the law of change or impermanence. (Therefore clinging to form causes suffering)
The law of change applies equally to the "soul". (Therefore non-self)
The universe is the expression of law. (Kamma, purifying inner nature, liberation from rebirth, ultimately every form of life will reach enlightenment)
Life is one and indivisible, though its ever-changing forms are innumerable and perishable. (Compassion and harmony)
Life being One, the interests of the part should be those of the whole. (Selfishness is caused by ignorance; the four noble truths)
The Eightfold Path consists of: etc. (The way is to be practised, not just theory: "Cease to do evil, learn to do good, cleanse your own heart: this is the Teaching of the Buddhas")
Reality is indescribable, and a God with attributes is not the final Reality. But the Buddha, a human being, etc. (The Buddha became enlightened and tought that nirvana can be achieved on earth)
From potential to actual Enlightenment there lies the Middle Way, etc.
Buddhism lays great stress on the need of inward concentration etc.
The Buddha said: "Work out your own salvation with diligence". Buddhism knows no authority for truth save the intuition of the individual, and that is authority for himself alone.
Buddhism is neither pessimistic or "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these terms.

I can't say that "all schools share these teachings" but apparently, at least, these teachings are compatible with all the schools'.

I would quibble only with the idea that Reality is incomprehensible. Its true nature would be beyond conceptual fabrication, but this is not the same thing. I'd say it's not such a clear -cut issue. A minor issue here though. .

Thanks, apparently that was my transcription error:it should be "indescribable" (though I'm not sure how that's compatible with the doctrine of the Pali suttas, which seems to me to describe it at some length).

'Indescribable' seems correct. 'Describable only by negation' might be more accurate since negative description abound. But 'incomprehensible' I would never endorse. Nice answer though and +1 anyway.

I'd say nothing, there are so many sects, that you can find any Buddhism that lacks one element or the other.

Meditation (less common, matra and mudra)
The Historical Buddha. In some forms of Buddhism, the historical Buddha is not so important.
Monasticism and renunciation.
Philosophical bent that cares about topics like identity, change and it's application towards dealing with suffering.

But right off the top of my head, Shin de-emphasizes meditation, SGI deemphasizes monasticism, the Buddha of, say the Lotus Sutra, isn't really the same guy as the Buddha of the early Pali texts, and traditional lay Buddhism doesn't involve much philosophy.
The phrase that comes to mind when I'm reading about yet another sect or school of Buddhism, is "recognizable Buddhism."

The common teachings of all Buddhists are:
• The ordinary lot of human beings is to be suffering from a delusion about the real nature of the universe;
• A method for dispelling this delusion was originated by someone called "The Buddha" who employed it to purpose;
• Buddhism offers to teach the adherent this method so as to cease being subject to the delusion.
Other than these rudiments, all other teachings are variably composed, and supposed literal or metaphorical in their application of instruction. They amount to catechisms of formal doctrine without common confidence or consistency as to their meaning.

There might be many school with many different ideas, some following the Buddha and serving the Dhamma and Vinaya, some using it as base for own ideas. Once the Buddha was asked by his former foster mother, Ven Gotami, in regard of how to recognize whether teachings are Dhamma-Vinaya (the name the Buddha gave his founded religion) or not. He answered:

"Gotamī, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered and not to being fettered; to shedding and not to accumulating; to modesty and not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment and not to discontent; to seclusion and not to entanglement; to aroused energy and not to laziness; to being unburdensome and not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

Possible supportive Introdution to Dhamma-Vinaya.
Maybe worthy to think about is, that certain definitions like such as Buddhism and what might count as such... the standards as well as the orientation, are for the most later development, now also strong dominated by lay people and many various ideas and objectives behind.
The lesser the bound and regard torward the ancestor, elders and leaders, to more it goes astray and it, by time, becomes more and more difficult to find common ground, common objectives and common ways. Lucky if finding a paricular Sangha (monastic disciples) of common offiliation which carries on the heritage. It's worthy to note that the Buddha gave the surviving of the truth and way to it, Dhamma-Vinaya, at least more importance than unity, although he gave very concerning the best tools to handle unity and give into it.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

In all seriousness, i think the common teaching in both the meaning & expression is; "there once lived a man from Sakyan clan who achieved something special and it was very good"
There is no consensus on what he actually achieved.
I guess there is also consensus on him having some magical powers in general and it all having to do with some kind of meditation.


text:
What is the Avatamsaka Sutra about?
I'm not really expecting a short summary, but I'd be happy to get one. This is a 1600 page sutra in English (and cost over $100 on Amazon). It gets reference a lot in the Brahma Net Sutra and Huayan Buddhism.
Given that, what is the best way to dig into this... is there a Cliff Notes version?
And what is the Avatamsaka Sutra prescribing its readers to do?

I thought you may enjoy this article.  I just came across it 10 minutes ago. "The Avatamsaka Sutra in art" http://www.tricycle.com/feature/reflections-flowerbank-world

During the beginning of the 4th century CE, Buddhist scholars began composing a new series of Sūtras with the purpose of synthesizing and organizing concepts from earlier Mahāyāna Sūtras, a task which the authors viewed as the third turning of the wheel of Dharma.  Three Sūtras from this period left a major impact on the intellectual endeavor of Mahāyāna monastics: the Avatamsaka Sūtra, the Lankāvatāra Sūtra, and the Sandhinirmocana Sūtra.  The underline theme found in these three Sūtras, including the Avatamsaka Sūtra is the experience of the universe formed by consciousness detailed within epic narratives.1
The Avatamsaka Sūtra is also know for expounding the  teaching about the ever-abiding Buddha-nature that constitutes ultimate reality.2  However, some scholars believe the Avatamska Sūtra was composed earlier between 200 BC and 200 CE and played a major formative role in the development of  Buddhist thought.3   Nonetheless the Sūtra played an important role in the formation of Mahāyāna Buddhist teachings, which cannot be down played.

"The Avatamsaka Sūtra or Flower Garland Sūtra was translated into
  Chinese by Buddhabhadra between 408 and 410 CE.  It gives a very
  detailed account of Shakyamuni/Vairochana’s quest for enlightenment,
  and offers the view that existence is the combination of individual
  identity and interdependence, a crucial theme in the development of
  Indian Buddhist thought.  The Avatamsaka Sūtra became influential in
  the late sixth and seventh centuries through the works of monks such
  as Fashun (557-649 CE) and Zhiyen (602-668 CE), and later was the
  central text of the semi-esoteric Huayen order in China, which is
  known as Kegon in Japan.”4

The mandala principle found in the Avatamasak Sūtra, “conveys the most extraordinary visions that engage the audience in creating a setting and developing a receptivity that makes it possible for them to receive the Universal Vehicle teaching of the profound freedom and magnificent destiny of all living beings.” 5

An example of this found in the Avatamsaka Sūtra,  "the Buddha is
  surrounded by an enormous host of visitors, many from other universes,
  who sit in flower towers thousands of miles high, flown at more than
  warp speed across the reaches of space from worlds beyond as many
  worlds as there are grains of sand in sixty-two Ganges riverbeds.  The
  towers are arranged in the cardinal directions, intermediate quarters,
  and at the zenith and nadir in a classical mandala formation.  During
  the teaching, Shakyamuni Buddha now and then transforms himself into
  the sapphire-blue Vairochana, radiating magic light rays from his
  forehead that temporarily bestow on each member of the audience the
  intensely accelerated vision of all their past life experiences and
  all their future life attainments, up to and including attainment of
  perfect buddhahood in a future universe and performance of buddha
  deeds for the sake of all beings.  At the end of the teaching, the
  Bodhisattva Maitreya introduces the hero of the tale, the
  pilgrim-seeker Sudhana, a banker’s son, into the magical tower of
  Vairochana.  There Sudhana beholds the entire evolutionary history of
  Maitreya from a self-centered, unenlightened being to a functioning
  buddha.
At the same time, the panorama unfolds in infinite resonant variations
  in every atom of the universe, each containing infinite
  micro-universes, which contain infinite worlds where infinite living
  Sudhanas enter infinite Vairochana towers and behold infinite
  evolutionary panoramas of infinite living Maitreyas.”6

The Avatamasak Sūtra utilizes a narrative mandala principle for the reader, in which Buddha transports his audience into a new dimension of consciousness exploring the potentialities of their possible destiny.

The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction page 91
The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction page 182
Manadala The Architecture of Enlightenment page 32
Manadala The Architecture of Enlightenment page 23
Manadala The Architecture of Enlightenment page 135
Manadala The Architecture of Enlightenment page 135

Whenever I read such texts with diamond trees and so many other celestial beings I wonder what is sought to be conveyed. I feel like somehow complete the reading of that part as a ritual. Is that not unnecessary part?

According to a page on About.com ...
"The Avatamsaka Sutra is a Mahayana Buddhist scripture that reveals how reality appears to an enlightened being. It is best known for its sumptuous descriptions of the inter-existence of all phenomena."
The content:
http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas_contents.asp
The cliff note version (?):
http://www.buddhism.org/Sutras/2/Avatamsaka_Sutra.htm
Not sure this is what you are looking for though. Good luck.

@medhini, http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas_contents.asp is not complete. Some chapters are not linked to.

@medhini, I'm afraid I can't award the bounty because SE wants me to wait 8 hours but my account will cancelled in 1 hour.  Sorry about that.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the motivation for Torma?
Torma are sculpted butter and flour cakes set on mandalas and on altars during Tibetan Buddhist ceremonies.
Does anyone know what the story is with Torma and why are we doing offerings anyhow? Is there anything that is distinctively Buddhist about them, or is this really a syncretic tradition (i.e. is this just Hindu sacrificial rituals, but without the Hinduism)?
Everyone talks about offerings as if the internal mental model for offerings is obvious. As largely a secular Buddhist, I want to understand, but I don't have a lot to go on here. Offerings in a Christian church is money donated to the institution to fund the minister, etc. This isn't that sort of offering. Is this an offering to goose a Buddha or Bodhisattva or other diety or demi-god into doing something for us? The dieties don't actually eat the torma, so do the just appreciate the gesture, i.e. it's the thought that counts? Does this work via depriving oneself of something of value, a sort of austerity? Are these intended to more like a symbol to carry meaning?

Did you try Wikipedia?

I completely rewrote the question so that LMGTFY doesn't work as an answer anymore.

I found an interesting introductory article, "On Torma Offering", at http://shambhalatimes.org/2009/03/15/on-torma-offering/. These tormas are "given" generally in rituals by monastics who own nothing and usually have just about that much to give so the more important aspect of the ritual is the intent or motivation, the mental attitude. Indeed, appearances are absolutely deceiving so an open mind in all aspects is very helpful. For example, in the six realms, (god, demi-god, human, animal, hungry ghost, & hell realms), every physical thing thing is said to be exactly the same with just relative views and reactions by the beings in those realms as they "see" from their own point of view. (One example given often in sutras is the river that is seen as nectar of immortality by the gods, water by the humans, and pus and the like by the beings in the hungry ghost realms.) I often think all six variations are demonstrated, relatively, right here in our world, all the time.   So, very little given with little to no attachment and great compassion for the receiver(s) (like the widow with 2 pennies and a monk or nun without attachment) can be quite an amazing gift.

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


text:
The hidden cycle: dying, death, rebirth
I am looking for an explanation for my wife about what happens during the dying-death-rebirth cycle according to Buddhist teachings as well as any background readings we can locate.
I was explaining the mourning period after the death of a loved one being based on the average time before rebirth (49 days in Vietnamese tradition), and she had made reference to some reading she had been doing that mentioned the phases that must be passed before a rebirth takes place.
I also recall a teaching by Thich Nguyen Tang that explained the 6 possible states in which a person can be reborn (heaven, human life, asura, hungry ghost, animal, hell).
Is there a unified explanation that exists between the various traditions?

Not entirely sure if a unified explanation exists. Since there is a close vote, maybe try asking (in separate questions) "What is the average time before rebirth?" and "What are the different realms?" You will probably get answers with different perspectives based on different traditions.

This might have an answer if you restrict it to one sort of tradition, or one text, e.g. the Tibetan Book of the Dead (which describes moving thorugh Bardo)

In the Pali scriptures there are two theories of the process of re-birth with differing prominence.
The standard view is an elaboration of the chain of dependent origination Pratītyasamutpāda/Paṭiccasamuppāda, where this process happens according to most stand-points, including the abhidhammic, between the elements 2 and 3 - saṅkhāra and viññāna. Three conditions need to come together for a woman to become pregnant and bear a child:

her womb
the semen of a man
the consciousness of a dying person

Combined these three result in the consciousness of a new person and then (number 4) also in a psychophysical entity (still in the womb). Compare for this the Mahanidanasutta of DN.
The other view is that of something of a spirit of the deceased, called gandhabba, that wanders around searching for a locus of rebirth. This is a more 'popular' conception of rebirth and it seems to lie behind the prescribed number of days you mention. I don't recall the scriptural reference for this, it would be great, if anyone could supply that.
Not to mix things up, the states you mention are the six gatis, realms of rebirth, compare my answer here: Is there an equivalent of heaven and hell in Buddhism? for more information and a source.
More or less there should be these two conceptions in all of the traditions, the first one being more scientific, the second one more popular and - if I may add - in this form totally not to be reconciled with 'scientific Buddhism'.
EDIT: The Pudgalavāda or Vatsīputrīya school of Hīnayāna-buddhism claimed that when a person dies, this very person becomes some sort of "intermediate being" - upapāduka sattva - until that person is reborn.

In the Theravada tradition, when one dies, he/she is reborn immediately. There's no gap between death and birth. I think this confusion comes becauses of the stories about people floating around, looking for a suitable womb, after death. But those beings who float around can still see and hear. That means they have a body with functional senses. So they are born already into a new existence.


text:
What did the Buddha teach about aliens?
What are the teachings of the Buddha about aliens or other planets that have lives?
Is this the only place that can have life or human beings?
Is it possible to be born a Buddha in some other universe or planet?

The Buddha talked about the "world Systems" and other humans in them. This is a fascinating topic for myself as someone interested in astronomy. Here are some links speaking about world systems and related topics.
The Dhamma is sort of like the laws of mathematics and physics that govern this universe, universal to all sentient beings, everywhere. This is why we spread our metta out into the universe. I usually go one step further and spread metta out to the multi-verse.
What Buddhists Believe
Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera: Other World Systems
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/300.htm
The Buddhist Concept of World
Bhikkhu T. Seelananda
http://bhavanasociety.org/resource/the_buddhist_concept_of_world/
The Buddha once explaining the world system said, ” Monks, as far as sun and moon revolve and illuminate all directions by their radiance, so far does the thousand-fold world system extend. And in that thousand-fold world system, there are thousand moons, a thousand suns, inhabited planets…. This thousand-fold world system is called culanikā-loka-dhātu or Minor World-System, which is the smallest unit in the universe (But all these change takes place, transformation takes place. When seeing this the instructed noble disciple is disenchanted, dispassion..)
I also find this sutta fascinating in which the Buddha appears to be speaking about a black hole..
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.046.than.html
Andhakara Sutta: Darkness
"There is, monks, an inter-cosmic[1] void, an unrestrained darkness, a pitch-black darkness, where even the light of the sun & moon — so mighty, so powerful — doesn't reach."

The traditional Mahayana cosmology allowed for multiple parallel universes, each with at most one Buddha at a time, six realms each.
In the pure land system, a pure land is like a parallel universe where you can be re-born, so yes, you can be re-born in a different world, far from Earth, in the traditional cosmology.
The various Mahayana sutras often go on at length at the great number, size, tininess and so on of the various places and inhabitants of the universe.
The story of Mahā-maudgalyāyana has a science fiction feel to it.

"traditional Mahayana cosmology allowed for multiple parallel universes". Could that be considered a huge philosophical milestone that remains un-celebrated?

Not really. The Indian intellectual project was like the ancient Greek one, lots of speculation, not grounded in evidence-- when Democritus thought up atoms, he was mostly right by luck. Science fiction and speculation is sometimes right, but it isn't science, imho.

yes its called UTHURU KURU DIWAYINA means the land of short human beings. they were good human beings on earth. after their death they are born in that land. today we called them aliens. they are good people and do not want to harm earth. there are three other places where the human beings are.its called PURWA WEDEHA, UTHURU KURU DIWAYINA AND APARA GOYANAYA..


text:
Where are the Eight Worldly Winds and how to deal with them described?
To refresh your memory, the Eight Worldly Winds are:

Pleasure
Pain
Praise
Blame
Gain
Loss
Fame
Ill-repute

I am also curious to know why they are called 'winds'.  Term in original language?

The only source I found which indicates the reason why it's called 'winds' is Milinda Pañha pg.354 where they are called aṭṭhalokadhammavātehi, "by winds
of the eight worldly conditions".

Mentioned in both the Lokavipatti Sutta in the Pali Canon, and in verse 29 of Nagarjuna's "Letter to a Friend."
The short answer on how to deal with them is: see them for what they are. Transient sources of suffering.


text:
How does Dependent Origination relate to Vipassana Meditation?
How does Dependent Origination relate to Vipassana meditation as taught by different schools / interpretations of Buddhism?
More particularly how do you break the links of dependent origination as per the meditations techniques taught by different schools / masters? What is the strategy that the cycle will break at the given link? Many meditation manuals do not relate to the development of understanding dependent origination. So how do the practice and theory of this issue relate? Also how does the practicing according to the tradition lead up to the understanding of dependent origination through self-realisation?

Can you elaborate? What do you mean by relate? This is an overly broad or vague question.

I can probably give this an answer if I take it in the context of the 12 nidanas as a significant application of the principle of dependent origination.
The way that I have been taught this (within the Triratna Buddhist movement) is that the nidanas can and do break at the point between feeling and craving. So to give the chain at that point

With Contact as condition, Feeling arises
With Feeling as condition, Craving arises
With Craving as condition, Clinging arises

And around we go....
So for most of us most of the time when we have a feeling then the reaction is craving - each time, round and round. But with spiritual practice is is possible to break the cycle at this point and not have craving. It is at this point that liberation can start.
I suspect that up to here is will not be that controversial. But in Triratna we talk a lot about the spiral path at this point which spirals up to enlightenment - a kind of positive formation of the 12 nidanas. This is taken from the Upanisā Sutta.
But OPs question is about the Vipassana techniques around this. Although we have a system of meditation, the practice most relevant to this would be a just sitting or a noting practice where we notice the feelings arise and try to see that just as that - feelings. In that way we can see again and again that feelings are just feelings and of themselves do not have craving or desire as a neccessary part of them. Thus one day, with faith and perseverance the cycle breaks.
Another way into this might be with a mindfulness practice relating to the Satipatthana Sutta  particularly with reference to the section on feelings.

Accroding Abhidhamma, we have 5 Feelings.
1.Painful (concern with body)
2.Joyful( concern with mind)
3. Pleaure (concern with body)
4. Hatred (concern with mind)
5. Neutral (concern with mind)
Normally, When we feel painful we don"t like(unhappy) so that appear immoral consciousness
Domanassa( Hatred). If we feel Joyful we are happy and we want more & more so appear Lobha
(Greed).If we do not know (without) wise like neutral feeling, it is Moha(Delusion).
When we mindful that feelings,  mind cannot follow to immoral cons. According Dependent origination, it cannot link Feeling to craving when we mindful with effort. Other wise, mind will follow the feelings and cravings are appear that's make us cycle of rebirth all the time. If your mindfulness is high level,you may have neutral feeling with wise.

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


text:
How do you identify the 5 factors associated with Jhana?
How do you recognise the different factors associated with Jhana and the level of Jhana you are in? (Not necessarily when you are in Jhana.)
More particularly how do recognise the factor of applied thought as such, factor of sustained thought as such, factor of rapture as such, factor of happiness as such and factor of one-pointedness of mind as such. How does the experience and correlate with the named factor such that it can be properly ascertained that this is infact this factor, and that factor has arisen and not something else or miss evaluation?

Referring to the five component factors: applied thought, sustained thought, rapture, happiness and one-pointedness of mind. (source)
Your question is about identifying these factors while in a Jhana - I would suggest that there is no room for such thoughts while in a Jhana. Instead, evaluate the experience once you come out of it - what worked, and what was what (identifying). Thinking "is this that?" or "am I in a Jhana?" are sure ways of getting out of the Jhana. Instead, just be with the experience (in the now moment) and evaluate it afterwards.

In jhana, obviously knowing exists, therefore the five factors of jhana are known when jhana consummates.

Applied thought and sustained thought are not the factors that you recognize, they are the factors that you generate. You know when you have them, because you are doing them!
Once you use applied and sustained thought properly, the factors of joy and ease (what you called rapture and happiness -- the translations I don't find precise) will emerge. These are very easy to recognize, because you will feel joyful and at ease! ;)

Vitaka is the act of bring your attention to the breath. Vicara is the act of sustained focus on the breath. So, you do these two factors as a foundation approach to your practice.
Piti is a physical experience. So, you sense it in the body. Don't be misled by the English interpretation of joy. It might be energy buzz, joyful feeling, tingling or other such feeling. Because this is still a physical sensation it is still gross. So, moving on from piti we find it's mental counterpart, sukha. Sukha is the feeling of pleasure felt in the mind, an imprint of piti. Look for it there. It might manifest as contentment or just a sense of being pleased with ones situation.
Ekaggata is one-pointedness. So it isn't necessarily felt. It is the leaving behind of physical and mental cues and instead a focus on conscious awareness. You are focused on the act of awareness.

If you ask for an experience, I have not. But if you ask for a resource, you can found in path of purification, Chapter 4th Pathavīkasiṇaniddesa.


text:
What are the twelve aspects of the Four Noble Truths?
For each of the Four Noble Truths, there are three aspects. The three aspects for each Noble Truth follows a pattern of Recognition (understanding it), Encouragement (what is to be done), and Realization (what has been done).
Please elaborate on the twelve aspects - are they the same in all traditions? In what ways are they helpful towards realizing the Path?

Looks like you are talking about so called 'three turnings of dharma wheel'. This is actually vast subject.

Referring to the twelve insights actually - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#Twelve_insights

Yes, check 3rd footnote there: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html#fnt-3

@catpnosis is the question not specific enough? "are they the same in all traditions? In what ways are they helpful towards realizing the Path?" - the purpose was to ask the question in  a way that is beneficial for many. Even larger, complex topics can be boiled down to simpler explanations. Please suggest a revision if you think the question can be asked more clearly.

The actual terms for the three aspects (parivaṭṭa) are:

sacca - the truth
kicca - that something must be done
kata - that the kicca has been done

The aspects for each truth are as follows:
Suffering (dukkha)

sacca: the knowledge that suffering is suffering
kicca: the knowledge that suffering must be fully understood (pariññeyya)
kata: the knowledge that suffering has been fully understood (pariññāta)

The Cause of Suffering (dukkha-samudaya)

sacca: the knowledge that craving (taṇhā) is the cause of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that craving must be abandoned (pahātabba)
kata: the knowledge that craving has been abandoned (pahīna)

The Cessation of Suffering (dukkha-nirodha)

sacca: the knowledge that the remainderless cessation of craving is the cessation of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that cessation must be realized (sacchikātabba)
kata: the knowledge that cessation has been realized (sacchikata)

The Path to the Cessation of Suffering (dukkha-nirodha-gāminī paṭipadā)

sacca: the knowledge that the eight-fold noble path is the path to the cessation of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that the path must be cultivated (bhāvetabba)
kata: the knowledge that the path has been cultivated (bhāvita)

The realization of the four noble truths in these twelve aspects constitutes the attainment of Buddhahood; it is probably not necessary that a student come to full realization of these things, since they only need to do what needs to be done, rather than fully understand the nature of what they have done. Only fully-enlightened Buddhas understand the truths intuitively enough to teach them; even private-buddhas are not able to teach them to others.
As to their practicality, since they constitute the core of Buddhism, understanding them intellectually is of great importance. It will help ensure that your practice is in line with the Buddha's teaching; especially the first and last truths. The first truth reminds us that our intent is not to run away from suffering but to actually study it, so that we stop clinging to it. The last truth should be studied in detail, to understand all eight aspects of the path.
As to whether they differ between traditions, I doubt the understanding as to what the Buddha taught in his first discourse differs much between the Pali and the Chinese, but the interpretation of what they mean may differ, along with their place in one's practice (since Mahayana seems to see them as only 'relatively' true).
If you're interested, Mahasi Sayadaw's book on the first discourse is interesting:
http://www.buddhanet.net/wheeld01.htm
I wrote a (shorter) piece on them as well:
http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings/lessons-in-practical-buddhism/simple-truth/

Another PDF which identifies the 3 aspects to each truth is: The Four Noble Truths by Ven. Ajahn Sumedho


text:
Why are Jhanas controversial?
I have heard that some teachers do not teach the Jhanas, others do. Yuttadhammo mentions the great debate about Jhanas. What is the controversy about? Whether they are useful towards realizing Nibbana/Nirvana? Is the debate relevant to all Buddhist traditions, only some, or are traditions split up in their views about Jhanas?

The debate centres around the Theravada commentarial interpretation of the suttas along with the teachings in the Abhidhamma, Patisambhidamagga, and Visuddhimagga.
Basically, there are two schools of thought, one which subscribes to the above teachings and one that rejects them.
The teachings in question are those that describe two potential paths:

jhānalābhi - one who obtains at least the first jhāna
sukkhavipassaka - one who only obtains momentary concentration.

For example, in the Visuddhimagga:

Herein, “purification of view” is the correct seeing of mentality-materiality. One who wants to accomplish this, if, firstly, his vehicle is serenity, should
  emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhāna, except the base consisting of
  neither perception nor non-perception, and he should discern, according to characteristic, function, etc., the jhāna factors consisting of applied thought,
  etc., and the states associated with them, [that is, feeling, perception, and so on].
...
But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle
  is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements (XI.27ff.).
(Path of Purification, pp. 609-10)

Those who reject this split point to various teachings to support the idea that the samatha jhānas are necessary for attainment of the path.
An article that looks interesting from an academic point of view (I only read the abstract) is here:
http://www.tkwen.theravada-chinese.org/A%20Study%20of%20Sukkihavipassaka%20in%20Pali%20Buddhism_final.pdf
From the abstract:

This thesis reveals that the concept of arahants who lack the first form-sphere jhāna is accepted not only by the Theravāda but also by the Sarvāstivāda, the *Satyasiddhisāstra, and the Yogacārabhūmiśāstra. Since various Buddhist schools in India unanimously advocate the idea that there are arahants who have not achieved the form-sphere jhāna, this research concludes that the dry-insight meditative approach and dry-insight arahants are not an invention by Theravādin commentators, but a common heritage which was most probably handed down from the time of the Buddha and then shared by various Buddhist schools.

I imagine reading through the thread I linked to in the other question would give you a good idea of the controversy. There was a heated debate many years back between a Burmese and a Sri Lankan monk on the topic that was highly academic, but still a fun read:
http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Satipatthana%20Vipassana:%20Criticisms%20and%20Replies.htm

Also if you stick to the instruction mainly in the Tripitaka most of the Suttas on meditation contain reference to them hence they are important. As the Ven. Sir mentioned the controversy arises due to interpretations in the Visuddhimagga and commentaries. The organisation that you do it through Jhana and or without are also mainly later developments. If I remember right there is only one Sutta where there was any reference of a person getting liberated without gaining psychic abilities (I am not sure if this implies the absence of Jhana) but still the Tripitaka does not give a distinction as two ways to achieve it. This also has led to debate on the relevance of Jhana. If you take the Tripitaka as your source then there is no controversy.


text:
Are dark night problems a common thing? It worries me that if I practice they might happen
Are dark night problems a common thing? It worries me that if I practice they might happen:
http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-knight-of-the-souls/372766

See http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/217/health-risks-of-meditation for some information on this.

It might help if you include a brief description of what a 'dark night' is, and what tradition/teacher it comes from.

Thnx Robin. I had read that (and most of the other things here). The subtle difference between that post and the content of the link I enclosed and also the treatment given to the topic by Daniel Ingram:
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB%205.%20Dissolution,%20Entrance%20to%20the%20Dark%20Night?p_r_p_185834411_title=MCTB%205.%20Dissolution,%20Entrance%20to%20the%20Dark%20Night
is that the dark night happens to everyone that reaches a certain (advanced) stage in their meditation and is not just a problem for people with psychotic tendencies.

Tim, see below, but specifically on the above. Be careful with what Ingram etc mean by DN. Sometimes they mean the significant negative experiences. But sometimes -- e.g. in the "it happens to everyone" sense -- they're simply referring to several specific stages on the path, whether those are experienced negatively or not. A broader reading says two things: 1. this path -- from the Visuddhimagga -- is only one of many; 2. most people following it do not experience the stages in question as a bad thing (in which case, the benefits of even labeling them as DN are questionable).

Yes, passing through what you called "dark night" is a prerequisite for Enlightenment.
The term refers to existential crisis experienced around the time of fully realizing Emptiness and the Three Marks of Existence. In Vajrayana tradition this is also referred to as the death of the ego. As Chogyam Trungpa said,

Enlightenment is ego's ultimate disappointment.

(On a separate note, I would not blindly believe anything I read on dharmaoverground.org -- that community does not seem to be grounded in genuine teaching.)

This "Dark Night" stuff is my biggest problem with dharmaoverground.org (which is in general interesting and useful). I mentioned it here. My complaint is that it acts as a lens  -- on dharmaoverground.com you'll often hear people refer to themselves as "dark night yogis" -- through which these negative aspect get focused with the result that it feeds our built-in cognitive bias to overestimate the probability of certain things occurring.
Look at Yuttadhammo's response. He's a monk and an experienced teacher, and he doesn't appear to even have heard of the thing. (Sorry Y. if I'm reading into your question). If the thing was that common, you'd think he'd have heard about it. And when the Dalai Lama met with Willoughby Britton to hear about her work (again, video link in my another thread), he seemed not to have encountered it much either.
Here's Shinzen Young again (link also in that other post):
"In my entire career of teaching, ... I have encountered this in students only a few times."
When I first read about it (in Dan Ingram's book, "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha", which I do recommend), I was scared too. But since broadening my reading I've decided that I'm glad to know about DN stuff, in the same way that I know about the oxygen masks in a plane. But I don't really expect to have to use either of those pieces of information.

Thnx Tommy. I have watched the videos and read the texts. Very helpful.

As hinted to in the article, they are perhaps not a common thing. However, such issues highlight the benefits of having a teacher that can help with moving on from a place where you are experiencing difficulties.

It's not helpful to avoid meditation because of the view of a single source claiming there are dangers. Skillful meditation practice works with reducing fears, such articles tend to increase fears. Fear, in Buddhism, is a prominent cause of suffering
If you are not experiencing these "dark nights", worrying about them will do no good. If you are experiencing them (I interpret your question as you aren't), then seek help from a qualified teacher - don't run away from them, even if that should be your first inclination.
The benefits of Buddhist meditation are many and the popularity of meditation spreading in the West, testify to that.
Difficulties will certainly arise - in meditation as in life in general. Buddhism provides methods and (thousands of) techniques to deal with difficulties. Since there are so many teachings, it's usually best to have a teacher help guide you on the way.

From the article:

"the main delivery system for Buddhist meditation in America is
  actually medicine and science, not Buddhism."

By going to a Buddhist teacher (i.e. monastic), there may be better chances of dealing with such experiences, skilfully.
Quoting Shinzen Young from the article:

Almost everyone who gets anywhere with meditation will pass through
  periods of negative emotion, confusion, [and] disorientation. …The
  same can happen in psychotherapy and other growth modalities. I would
  not refer to these types of experiences as 'dark night.' I would
  reserve the term for a somewhat rarer phenomenon. Within the Buddhist
  tradition, [this] is sometimes referred to as 'falling into the Pit of
  the Void.' It entails an authentic and irreversible insight into
  Emptiness and No Self. Instead of being empowering and fulfilling … it
  turns into the opposite. In a sense, it's Enlightenment's Evil Twin.
  This is serious but still manageable through intensive … guidance
  under a competent teacher. In some cases, it takes months or even
  years to fully metabolize, but in my experience the results are almost
  always highly positive.

So again, don't worry, find a good teacher, and just try it. See if it's helpful. Don't make a problem of it unless it occurs.

Thnx FullPeace. The implication is that once you reach it, it is a little late to do anything about it. A little like opening Pandora's box...

@Tim I understand your point. Worrying about it is about as helpful as worrying about getting cancer or being eaten by an anaconda. Not much use, to worry. That, as anything, can happen - life is uncertain. If it does happen, there are ways to deal with the situation. If it doesn't - which is more likely - perhaps you'll be happy you ventured down the road of meditation practice.

Indeed @FullPeace, point taken. BTW, how does one find a "competent teacher"?

Depends on where you are located - see if there is a monastery nearby, for instance. Theravada, Mahayana (Zen, Tibetan, ..) monasteries (to my knowledge) offer free meditation instructions and Dhamma talks (teachings), so you can visit one and try it out for a few months, if available. If not, there are resources online - Ajahn Brahm for instance is a popular teacher for beginners (search for 'Ajahn Brahm' on YouTube, for example). Also, it's a separate question to ask, perhaps.

He is indeed @FullPeace. I bought and read Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond a few months ago. Gives a lot of emphasis to the Jhana but none the less a good read.


text:
What are the canonical texts for the Buddhisms of the world?
And as a follow up, what institutions are charged with expanding the list of canonical works, if any?

This is a pretty broad question. Maybe you should narrow it down, out at least separate it into two questions.

I self answered, although someone else probably could answer better. I could have asked, what is the Buddhist Bible? This makes 2 assumptions, someone made a canonical list of texts and someone is/or isn't charged with making the list longer.

The question has the potential to be a goldmine of useful information.  I think it should be reformulated and expanded to add more context?  Perhaps, the question could address one particular Buddhist tradition's canon?

I think we'd better change this into a community-wiki question. This way we can compile one complete answer (or alternatively one answer per tradition) in which every tradition can list it's canonical texts and institutions.

I'll add the other part of the answer:
Tibetans take the Kanjur to be canonical. It's is a huge list of documents. New documents are added as new terma are discovered. Terma are roughly teaching left long ago to be discovered today.
The Chinese Buddhist canon was compile a long time ago. It also is a hug list of documents. As far as I know, there isn't an institution to expand it. I would guess the natural role would be the Chinese Imperial Government, which doesn't exist at the moment, or at least is hostile to Buddhism.
The Pali canon, as mentioned by Jayantha is a huge set of documents and as far as I can tell, there isn't any institution that is attempting to add more text to it.

For Theravada there is the Tipitaka: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html
This consists of the "three baskets"  of the vinaya pitaka,  the rules for monastics,  the sutta pitaka aka the sutta teachings,  and the abidhamma.
It is generally accepted that the oldest and most core part of the Tipitaka that is closest to what the buddha said,  are the four Nikayas
Digha Nikaya (long discourses)
Majjhima Nikaya ( middle length)
Samyutta Nikaya (grouped discourses)
Anguttara Nikaya ( numbered discourses)
There is also the Khuddaka Nikaya which is a collection of "little texts".  This is where the famous dhammapada  and Sutta Nipāta reside.

Just bear in mind: Different traditions will give you different answers, theravada and mahayana traditions have different suttas, the same thing goes for the commentaries and the importance of later works... Nevetheless most of the suttas and the Vinaya are the same.
I always use tipitaka as a reference and I like to read the 4 nikayas (Im a lay person)
metta,

Actually, there are five nikayas, I assume you chose to omit the Khuddaka.

Nothing can be added to the list of canonical works of the Buddha.  They were recited three months after the Buddha's parinibbana and cannot be added to or subtracted from.


text:
How compatible are Buddhism and Communism?
Despite communism as practiced (as opposed to what Marx might have had in mind) being the source of some of the largest slaughter of lay and monastic Buddhists ever (except maybe the Imperial Chinese)... are the principles of Buddhism and communism (or socialism) compatible?
Did the historical Buddha or the later sutra writers hit on any of the same concepts that Marx did in any substantive way?

Do you think they have anything in common? Will you post an answer of your own?

No I don't think they do. I'm currently reading Tom Pepper, who is either communist or at least a sympathizer and (as far as I can tell) a secular Buddhist who started from Shin Buddhism. In his writings he likes to mix ideas from Communism and Buddhism. I keep feeling like it's trying to mix, dunno, Elvis and Buddhism. There isn't any obvious correlation, but who knows, there are many books I haven't read. I won't post an answer of my own unless sometime in the future I happen to come across the answer. I didn't post this rhetorically as a set up for a blog post.

Having just read one or two paragraphs of Tom's, I suppose I politely try to summarize his view as a) Capitalism is a bad idea b) Buddhism is good at keeping you from getting fixed ideas ("reification") so (f I understood correctly) use that to avoid being re-infected with the "Capitalism is necessary" idea.

Elsewhere he says, "I would argue (and have argued) that anything that breaks through our delusions is a Buddhist practice", so, if you accept that then maybe that could be another link/argument: Capitalism is a delusion, Communism breaks through that delusion, therefore Communism is Buddhist ....

Interesting. The two fields of thought do have similar interests in reification-- treating abstractions are more real than they really are. Its probably an open question if the rest of communism isn't just a new set of reifications (labor creates value-- there's two reifications, workers have rights, two more reifications, and so on.

Marxism is strictly materialistic. It builds on the idea that if you distribute all goods evenly, people will stop suffering. That was a reasonable assumption to make when the vast majority of the population suffered from uneven distribution of goods.
Buddhism on the other hand does not regard changing the outer conditions as being important in overcoming suffering. More precisely, it suggests that transcending the outer conditions is the key to overcoming suffering, so in essence it denies the core question that Marxism seeks to give an answer to.
So I would say that they are pretty much orthogonal. Buddhism could probably act as a formidable complement to the Marxist theories when trying to build a society. But to individual Buddhists, Marxism is not necessarily useful.

Marxism is strictly materialistic, but communism isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-Building

@catpnosis: Interesting point, although I find it hard to speak about "communism" as the term is very vaguely defined and has been interpreted and even misused in a multitude of ways. I would not say that communism is somehow inherently tied to God-Building, particularly since Lenin rejected the notion. Just like it is not inherently tied to the Russian Orthodox Church, even though Stalin embraced it. But yes, there's evidence of "communist" societies being incompatible with Buddhism. The People's Republic of China is arguably a prominent case.

I agree about the term vagueness, look my answer below for example definition. Modern Chinese CP actually quite supportive to Buddhism. And in early USSR Buddhism was supported too (there was even pioneering Institute of Buddhist Culture.)

Buddha did preach on tenfold virtue of the ruler but this cannot be taken as endorsement of any particular system of politics though people may try to argue as so which they have freedom to do. So references by later authors should be examined in the context of the scriptures to see if they are accurate.

Answer is greatly depend on what communism is. There is many opinions on communism, and in the course of history it have appropriated many unfortunate misconceptions (like vulgar atheism and dialectical materialism). I would define communism as idea of scientifically improving humanity (society as a whole and each person in particular). This most general idea does not contradict with Buddhism. Improving society is barely touched in Buddhism, but improving persons is. Alas, actual communist traditions have accepted ideas that really contradict Buddhism. For example, Leninism state that 'everything that is good for working class is moral'. That is directly contradictory to Buddhist discipline.
Also, curious quote from Dalai Lama:

"Still I am a Marxist," the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader said in New
  York, where he arrived today with an entourage of robed monks and a
  heavy security detail to give a series of paid public lectures.
"(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make
  profits," the Dalai Lama, 74, said.

And another:

Midway through the conversation, His Holiness, much to their surprise,
  told them "as far as socio-political beliefs are concerned, I consider
  myself a Marxist ... But not a Leninist," he clarified. [...]
When one student asked if this didn't contradict the Dalai Lama's
  philosophy, he replied: "Marx was not against religion or religious
  philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied,
  during Marx's time, with the European ruling class."

DL says so many silly things. God bless his soul.

Did the historical Buddha or the later sutra writers hit on any of the same concepts that Marx did in any substantive way?

To me, yes he did. Principles of Buddhism and Communism are definitely compatible.
On what basis do I say this? - I have not gone through material originally written in Pali or Sanskrit or Tibetian etc. I have not studied "tripitak". I have tried to study "Dhammapad" but that too in Marathi (one of the local Indian languages) - a translated work. But I have read work on Buddhism and its philosophy, message by others like P. Lakshumi Narsu, Dharmanand Kosambi, Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sangharakshit etc.
Book by Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar is major source of my answer - Buddha and His Dhamma.Dr. Ambedkar was student of Buddhism. Dr. Ambedkar has written a separate book on the issue - Buddha and Karl Marx . If you are interested I can post the links here.
I came across THIS article. Though is not written to address the issue mentioned in the question, while talking on something else, it also speaks about relationship between Marxism (Communism) and Buddhism. I am not expressing my personal opinion about the article. Just posting it for adding more information to carry on this useful discussion.

"Buddha or Karl Marx"-- I found the essay here: http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/20.Buddha%20or%20Karl%20Marx.htm  A very good reference.

I started reading this until I got to the part where he talks about the creed of the Buddha...  The Buddha never said any such thing about any of this. Infact I'd say this is pretty dangerous.

Religion is necessary for a free Society.

Not every Religion is worth having. 3. Religion must relate to facts of life and not to theories and speculations about God, or Soul or Heaven or Earth.

It is wrong to make God the centre of Religion.

It is wrong to make salvation of the soul as the centre of Religion.

It is wrong to make animal sacrifices to be the centre of religion.

Jayantha - I concur, Ambedkar Buddhism is a very specific version of Buddhism. Many of it's tenants are very modern and culturally specific to the Dalit situation in India: ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement

@ Jayantha : it is hermeneutics. If you want I can give you few references if you are interested. but this interpretation is not absolutely baseless. In fact if applied to particular context where it was preached, one may find it exact and 'right' interpretation.

Communism cannot free you from suffering, it only prepares you for more different kind if you will suffering where as Buddhism promises freedom from all kind of mental afflictions.

I would say not at all, but in all honestly I bet any of us can take our own perspective and pick the Buddhas words to make our argument. Seems to be from my perspective that the Buddha mostly stayed out of politics with the rare exception of counseling kings who came to him and even then the advice was mostly about the ruler themselves performing skillful actions just like the rest of us, not about grand political maneuvers.
I actually wonder if the scope of this question is even appropriate for this website, considering it is a basic Q&A about Buddhism and this could turn into a political debate.

I got the idea for the question from reading about non-buddhism. One of the main proponents is keenly interested in mixing Buddhism and Communism, but I kept thinking-- are these even compatible? Communism seems like such a modern concern, it just seems anachronistic to mix it with Buddhism.

First of all, the Buddha did not envision an ideal human society, but the end of human society or rather: the end of everything human, which means suffering in the first place. Therefore, except for the rules that govern the life and community of monks and nuns for the time being, i.e. until enlightenment, there is no social teaching in the original word of the Buddha. So here, in the social sphere, my answer would be a straight no.
In later Mahayana Buddhism, though, the focal point shifts away from individual enlightenment, the new ideal being no more the Arhat, who achieves enlightenment for himself, but the Bodhisattva, who postpones his own enlightenment and strives to help and enlighten all other beings first. So in this stage, there is a social teaching, which does not contradict communism, I guess.
But maybe it would be useful, if you could specify exactly which tenets of communism/marxism you are having in mind, since for example quite obviously, there is no arguing on an economic basis in Buddhism. I guess, you did expect that.
There are two more things which come to my mind. First of all, again for early Buddhism, it denied the reality of class boundaries, which were in this specific context, the caste boundaries. The hierarchy within the order was based on age of service, i.e. time elapsed since ordination and there are stories from early Buddhism where hierarchies were turned upside down, the former low-caste dark-skin servant of some high-class person being all of a sudden his preceptor.
The other is a point where Buddhism is maybe much better compatible with marxism than any other religion could ever be: Buddhism denies the existence of the soul, of an all-powerful creator-god, rather it emphasizes cause and effect and a scientific approach to reality. This is not totally clear to me, but maybe even the mind can be seen as material.

Atheism in Buddhism is often very narrow and technical, denying a creator of the universe, but not foreclosing the possibility of Vairocana, Adibuddha, devas and god-like beings in immaterial realms and heaven-like Pure Lands and so on.  Seeing all of those and the whole cosmology as a metaphor and instructive fictional stories, is something of a modern innovation.

What I was trying to say did not go in the direction of atheism, but in the direction of gods or God not playing a major role for human life. Or even: no role at all. But this again is "old Buddhism". In Mahayana, things are different.

-1 I've seen Pali suttas quoted here that discuss good governance and marriage, and I think that might be broadly interpreted as "envisioning an ideal society".

Since Buddhism is a personal path of liberation, the litmus test of anything being Buddhist is the state of mind in which that thing is done.  As such, any claims that would pertain to a fixed conclusion about something (whether or not they came from a Buddhist) would not be Buddhism per se.
For instance, when encountering any question such as "Should I support System X?", the real question here is what is your mind-set when evaluating that decision?  Are you attached, reacting, trying to satisfy the needs of your self-image, or are you non-attached?
In a way, this side-steps such evaluations because it returns the focus not on the goodness of any given thing, but rather on how it affects the mind making it.
I highly recommend you look at  Skillful Means.  While applied in the context of liberation, I have also seen many Buddhists use it as a way of making more "objective" decisions.
But if you are looking for a more open-and-shut answer, then I'm not aware of any credible Buddhist doctrine about this, and would suspect anyone making such a pronouncement to be reflecting their personal opinion.

So you don't like Q & A websites because they are incompatible with Buddhism? They why are you here?

@MatthewMartin I never said Q&A was incompatible with Buddhism, I said that treating Buddhism as a source of doctrinal pronouncements on things like politics is incompatible with Buddhism.

What can we ask about Buddhism if not doctrinal pronouncements? Anyhow, your answer doesn't have anything to do with my question. The more appropriate place for this is on meta, where you can post on what sort of questions are suitable.

@MatthewMartin tons of things.  Questions about practice, challenges, chains of inference that connect the teachings.  There's much more to Buddhism than doctrine (see the Kalama Sutra).  Your question made an assumption, and I provided a valid answer, given that. If you really believe my response was not appropriate, then I recommend you rephrase your question to make what you want clear.

@MatthewMartin I re-read my answer; it seemed a bit critical, so I softened the wording.  My use of phrases like "beside the point" can definitely give a dismissive impression which was not my intent.  Hopefully the new wording better reflects the relevance to your question (which I wasn't dismissing).

Did the historical Buddha or the later sutra writers hit on any of the same concepts that Marx did in any substantive way?

No, not that I can think of.

The Buddha said some things about caste, but they weren't IMO like what Marx said about classes.
The Buddha IMO talk about individual salvation, whereas Marx writes about societies.
The Buddha defined some social rules (e.g. the Vinaya) but Marx defines nothing similar to that.
Communism restricts private wealth for the whole society, Buddhism only does so for monastics.

I expect it's possible to be a Marxist and a Buddhist, but they're different/distinct categories.
Similarly it's probably possible to be a Physicist and a Buddhist, but (IMO) Physics doesn't say much about Buddhism and Buddhism doesn't say much about Physics.
A "Marxist" might or might not have views about "social justice" that a Buddhist might agree with.
If "communism" means something like "tribal ownership instead of private ownership of land" or "worker's cooperatives instead of exploitative capitalist owners", then maybe (theoretically) "communism" could be a form of right livelihood (but I don't know because I'm not much of a political scientist/historian).
I suppose "not wanting to accumulate private wealth" could possibly be seen as similar in both, but I find it a reach/stretch to see anything in common (although that's partly because it's been so long since I read any Marx, and when I did I think it was only Das Capital and maybe the Communist Party Manifesto).

Despite communism as practiced (as opposed to what Marx might have had in mind) being the source of some of the largest slaughter of lay and monastic Buddhists ever (except maybe the Imperial Chinese)... are the principles of Buddhism and communism (or socialism) compatible?

I'm not sure that they need to be incompatible, although they have been.
Is it true that monastics are accused (by communists) of being parasitic landlords/oppressors of the peasants? I think you know that monastics in Japan work (in the fields). And the Chinese government now allows (state-sanctioned) Buddhism (in China). The persecutions you reference aren't (IMO) especially the fault of Buddhism. For example I guess that the Khmer Rouge were anti-intellectual (not just anti-Buddhist); and the Chinese Cultural Revolution was anti-culture and anti-history (not just anti-Buddhist). Note that communism has sometimes been anti-religion-in-general, for example also persecuting Christians.

I would say that the "business model" (for lack of a better word) makes Buddhism a target of Communists (or conquering Muslims, or conquering what-evers) in a way that say Christianity doesn't. Christians work, pay taxes,  join the army and monks, if they are following the vinaya, don't. Even Chinese monks that worked in the field were exempt from taxation & military service. I haven't read enough about the old Japanese system, the current one is a mortuary business model.

Communism is taken to mean a lot of different things, but at its essential core is simply the notion that the means of production -- i.e. land, factories, and so on -- should be collectively, not privately, owned.
So yes, Buddhism is compatible with Communism, but only in the same way that Cheesecake is compatible with woolen socks, or Windows 8 is compatible with a pony.

Practically, Buddhists should treat Communism as they do anything = as in ask whether what is said goes against the Buddha's teaching.
On a more positive note, I believe Communists can be Buddhists because solidarity is an idea which can be found in scripture.

If you joined the Buddha's community, you lost your former caste status. Apart from that; the Buddha did not overtly oppose the idea of the four castes (priests, warrior/ruling, business & workers), apart from asserting the Brahman caste had no inherent superiority due to birth; but instead, focusing on moral karma. Thus, the Pali suttas are replete with positive statements about the four castes, as though they are a natural order.
The Buddha taught people have different dispositions (MN 12) and thus the Buddha had the view of social diversity. For example, in DN 31, the respective obligations of employers & employees towards each other is clearly stated. This shows Buddhism does not have any communist ideals.

In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees as the Nadir:
(i) by assigning them work according to their ability, (ii) by supplying them with food and with wages, (iii) by tending them in
sickness, (iv) by sharing with them any delicacies, (v) by granting
them leave at times.
The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their master show their compassion to him in five ways:
(i) they rise before him, (ii) they go to sleep after him, (iii) they take only what is given, (iv) they perform their duties well, (v) they
uphold his good name and fame.
DN 31

Therefore, Buddhism, socially, does not adhere to a monolithic social order of only workers. The idea of a monolithic culture is Judaic, as shown in the Old Testament. Marxism possibly unconsciously (Marx was a rabbi's son but an atheist) modelled itself on the Judaic ideal. For example, the original Kibbutz culture of modern Israel appears not Marxist but traditionally Jewish.
In addition, while original feudal Capitalism was based on theft (i.e., the military seizure & ownership of land by the nobility war lords), Industrial Capitalism was based in technological innovation thus Intellectual Property (IP). In other words, the seizure of IP by the working classes under the Marxist model is theft, which is contrary to Buddhism.
In short, Buddhism as about the interconnectedness of the diversity of society. In Buddhism, business is grateful to labour and labour is grateful to business.
Where as the modern dialectic (?) political philosophies of Capitalism & Marxism are each selfish ideologies that lack gratitude for their self-declared yet needed 'nemesis'. They divide society.

Many people today look on life in all sectors as a struggle between conflicting interests—the “bosses” against the “workers,” the
“government” against the “people,” the “rich” against the “poor,” and
even the “women” against the “men,” or the “children” against the
“parents.” When the aim of life is seen as material wealth or power,
society becomes a struggle between conflicting personal interests, and
we are in need of an ethic to protect those interests. It is a
“negative ethic”: society is based on selfish interests—“the right of
each and every person to pursue happiness”—and an ethic, such as
“human rights,” is needed to keep everybody from cutting each other’s
throats in the process.
The Buddhist teachings are a “positive ethic”: well-being, rather than power or riches, is the aim; society is seen as a medium through
which all people have equal opportunity to maximize self-development
and well-being, and ethics are used to facilitate those ends
Buddhist principles for a fruitful and harmonious life by P. A. Payutto

Aspects of Communism may be compatible with Buddhist teaching on greed, but any ideology (including Buddhism itself) can become dogmatic in a person, and that is often likened to drunkeness. An adherent is drunk on ideas and a prosyletiser like a drunk encouraging others to drink with him.


text:
Can one take rebirth as an insect?
I have always wondered if insects belongs to the animal realm in Buddhism, and I have yet to read stories about rebirth as an insect, such as a butterfly, a mosquito, or a praying mantis.

According to Buddhism, rebirth can take one of four types:

Opapatika - spontaneous rebirth
Samsedaja - born or arisen from moisture
Andhaja - born in an egg, oviparous
Jalabuja born from a womb, viviparous

Most insects belong to the andhaja group, I think. But yes, as others have mentioned, insects are considered a potential realm of rebirth.
Examples from the texts:
Queen Upari (Ubbari)

Persons favored by fortune enjoying privileges of wealth, family, education, rank, physical beauty etc., are prone to exhibit haughtiness in their dealings with others. Shrouded in their own vanity and self-esteem, they become neglectful in their performance of meritorious deeds. Humility plays no part in their make-up. The Blessed One had taught in the Cūḷakammavibhaṅga sutta that such vain-glorious, haughty persons are liable to land up in lowly inferior re-births. On the other hand, unpretentious persons who show humility and pay reverential respects to those deserving of homage will be reborn in noble families.
Queen Upari of our story was extremely beautiful and being the chief queen of the ruling monarch was of very high status in life. She had her head turned by these pre-eminent qualities and looked down with contempt on those she should have shown her respects. For such unwholesome attitudes and actions, it may be presumed she was reborn a lowly female cowdung-beetle. On hearing this account of rebirth of his beloved queen as a female beetle, King Assaka promptly rejected it, saying "I don't believe it."
The hermit replied, "I can show you the female beetle and make her talk too." The king said, "All right. Please do and make her talk too." The hermit using his supernatural powers of abhiññā made a vow for both the male and female beetles to make their appearance before the king.
When the male and female beetles emerged from the heap of cowdung into the presence of the king, the hermit said, "Oh King, the female beetle which is following from behind was your chief queen Upari devi. Having abandoned you, she is now trailing the male cowdung-beetle wherever it goes. Oh King, have a good look at the female beetle who was lately your chief queen Upari."
The king refused to believe the hermit. "I can't believe that such an intelligent being as my queen Upari was reborn as this female beetle", said the king.
True, for those who do not quite believe in the laws of kamma and its resultant effect, who do not understand the principles of conditionality or causal relationship, as explained in Paṭiccasa-muppāda, it would be difficult to accept that a being of the human world should have gone down so low as to become a mere beetle. Even in these days of sāsanā when Buddha's teachings are widely prevalent, there are some people holding the view that "when man dies, he cannot descend into an existence inferior to that of a human being". So it is not surprising that during the dark ages when Buddha's dispensations were yet unheard of, such stories of incarnation were received with scepticism.
http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Dhammacakkappavattana%20Sutta.htm

Ven. Tissa

Tissa.-An Elder of Sāvatthi. He once received a length of coarse cloth as a gift and handed it to his sister to be made into a robe. She had the cloth pounded and spun into fine yarn and made of it a soft robe-cloth. At first Tissa would not accept it but was prevailed upon to do so and had it made into a soft robe by skilled robe-makers. He died on the night it was finished and, as a result of his fancy for it, was reborn as a louse in the robe. After his death, the monks wished to divide the robe but the louse started shouting. The Buddha, hearing this by his power of divine audience, asked the monks to lay the robe aside for seven days. At the end of that period, the louse was reborn in the Tusita world. DhA.iii.341ff.
http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/t/tissa.htm

Thanks, but aren't most insects are oviparus? Is the concept of egg in Buddhism different from science?

Right, sorry, fixed. No, I don't think there's a list of what animals are which type.

Some insects may historically have been thought of as "moisture born". For mosquitoes, though a microscope can show us a tiny egg is involved, it would be an understandable conclusion.

@yuttadhammo, is that Queen Ubbari story drawn from a particular sutta?

@Wideshanks It's from the Assaka Jātaka

yes insects are also a kind of animal. In buddhism it is mentioned that one can rebirth as any kind of animal accordiing to the deeds whom has done. I am a buddhist and please note these points.
Accordiing to the buddhism,
The only thing you take to the next birth is what you have done when you were alive ( called Meritorious Deeds) .
Rebirth as a human is a rare incident. (onece budda has mentioned that it is like the amount of the sand which you can get from the land to your thumb vs the rest of the sand in tha land Ex: Universe )
Edit
SN 20.2: Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail
Staying at Savatthi. Then the Blessed One [Lord Buddha], picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, “What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?”
“The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It doesn’t even count. It’s no comparison. It’s not even a fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
“In the same way, monks, few are the beings reborn among human beings. Far more are those reborn elsewhere. Thus you should train yourselves: ‘We will live heedfully.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.”
End Edit
One must have a lot of good deeds to have all the confrot in a life.
Buddihism does not accept to leave everything to past which means accepting everything as a result of the past and leave them. budda once mentined that if you have the courage you can even change the effects of your bad deeds.
Finaly keep in mind life is short do good things and improve your capability to get close to Nirvana. (the event or process of the extinction of the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya).In the Buddhism, when above fires are extinguished, one is released from the cycle of rebirth (samsara) and suffering (dukkha) comes to an end.

I always liked the probability thought experiment explained as: the chance a single blind turtle in all the world covered with water coming up from the depths once every hundred years and sticking its head through a single life preserver randomly floating along.

yes of course. All in all buddhism teach us that " being a human you must not waste your life and shoud live a life that is worthwhile to your current life and your next births."

It seems to me this answer does not necessarily suggest that human beings may be reborn as lower animals. If it is rare to be born as a human being,this may not entail that it is rare for a human being to be reborn as one. Not disagreeing but just being cautious. . .

I don't know of any stories about rebirth as an insect, but for some evidence of insect consciousness there's always the hilarious Pilahaka Sutta, and its unspoken "these worldly goods and fame are all just dung..."

wow a talking beetle too

As far as I can tell the "Animal realm" includes insects. It is a sentient being and I don't see why they wouldn't be a part of samsara.

Just wanted to share an insightful answer in the context of the Prajnaparamita literature:
Rebirth among insects are definitely possible as they form part of the animal realm: one of the three destinations of the threefold world (traidhatuka). In chapter XXVII of the Mahaprajnaparamitashastra there is a section embedded on transmigration.
The prelude of the animal realm is as follows:

The bodhisattva sees the animals (tiryak) undergoing all the torments: they are made to gallop by blows of the whip or stick; they are made to make long journeys carrying burdens; their harness is damaged; they are branded with hot iron.

Here is what is says regarding rebirth among insects:

– If hatred (dveṣa, pratigha) is predominant, they take the form of a poisonous snake (āsiviṣa), a scorpion (vṛṣcika), a spider (lūtā), a bee (madhukara), a myriapod (śatapadī) or a poisonous insect.
– If delusion (moha) is abundant, they are reborn as a kind of worm (kīta), a butterfly, a dung-beetle, an ant (pipīlika), an owl (ulūka), among the insects and stupid birds.

So there you have also the cause defined for being reborn as an insect.

You are the whole you are the nature. You are the truth everything is connected with you.You cant die you can just change your body.

Welcome to Buddhims SE! Can you elaborate on this. How exactly is this an answer to the OPs question?

"http://eduladder.com/viewnotes.php?notesid=66" This elaborate this question as whole. And once you got enlighten. You can understand the deep nature of this system.


text:
Conflict between theistic religious belief and Buddhist practice?
From the Buddhist perspective, is there an inherent conflict between being a believer in a theistic religion and a practitioner of Buddhist meditation?

According to Dalai Lama (targeting general public), if Buddhist ideals appeal to you, but you are already a member of another religion and worried about compatibility, you can (and should!) stay with your religion. From his perspective, all religions declare the same basic values of compassion etc. and if you practice your religion well, there is no point for you to switch.
According to Chogyam Trungpa however (targeting serious practitioners), there is a fundamental difference between theistic religions and Buddhism. Theistic religions posit a notion of Other Power (God) that you have to appeal to for your salvation. While the nontheistic teaching has practitioner depend on his own power (with Guru's help). From this perspective, the notion of God as an external entity must be transcended before the practitioner can fully reconnect with his/her fundamental sanity.
In Pure Land Buddhism practitioner initially depends on Other Power (Buddha Amitabha), which starts as an external entity, but eventually, through a change of perspective, is identified as one's true nature. So we could say, on advanced stages the notion of external God is transcended there as well.

Some theistic beliefs could contradict with Buddhist views. For example, if you believe that God is only savior, that is contradiction of belief in karma. Or, if you believe that God judges your experience, that contradicts with karma again. Or, if you believe that teaching given by God is best, that is contradiction with refuge in Buddha as best teacher of gods and men. When you deny, in such a way, right view and Buddhist refuge, you probably not practice Buddhist meditation correctly. But, if you just practice wishing of happiness to all beings (metta), that's not necessarily contradict with some God is Love idea.

Volkov's answer is on point, there is no "other power" in Buddhism and the Buddha indeed affirms that a person possesses agency; re http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/7.6-Attakari-S-a6.38-piya.pdf


text:
Why is Kwan Yin riding a sea turtle?
And maybe to save two related questions, why does Samantabhadra ride an elephant and Majursri ride a lion?
I was meditating with Kwan Yin statute and that was the main distraction, I had no idea why Kwan Yin is on a sea turtle.

Okay, I did my own research and here is what I've come up with so far. Interestingly, the artist is making a reference to this Pali suttra:

"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water,
  and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from
  the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east.
  A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would
  push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would
  come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you
  think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every
  one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"
  "It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle,
  coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his
  neck into the yoke with a single hole."
"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state.
  It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly
  self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence
  that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the
  world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy &
  rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine &
  discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation: 'This is stress...This is
  the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is
  the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

http://uwf.edu/wmikulas/webpage/leaves/website/canon/samyutta/sn56-48.html
Other Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are often described as riding a particular animal.
Samantabhadra is explicitly described as riding an elephant in his sutra. Samantabhadra's elephant appears to be another awe inspiring flourish. (At least from my reading of the excerpt of Samantabhadra Meditation Sūtra in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says of Manjusri and his lion: "Mañjuśrī is often depicted as riding on a blue lion, or sitting on the skin of a lion. This represents the use of wisdom to tame the mind, which is compared to riding or subduing a ferocious lion." Wikipedia doesn't explain why the lions, but elsewhere it's suggested that lions were sort a family symbol of the Sakyas, or it's just a reference to the pali sutra about "The lions Roar", ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakyasimha

The turtle/tortoise is a symbol of long life, health and medicine, as is the amrita nectar in the vase Kwan Yin is carrying. Kwan Yin herself symbolizes mercy, the moon, and the cooling waters of Dharma. I would think this is a prayer for long life, but also is a symbol of righteousness and compassionate living that will give you the causes for a long life to be able to practice Dharma, have better rebirths as well as ultimate enlightenment.

These are parts of later concepts and cultural development. To understand true Buddhism you have to try to develop understanding in the original Suttas and then put them to practice. This has little relevance to Buddhists than it being part of a cultural significance.
Higher understanding will come through your practice. Practice of the Dhamma and self realisation is the main aspect of Buddhism. So it would be best to set aside some of the question you might have for a while and than later revisit them through deeper knowledge you would have gained through meditation. As for the above these are cultural and later theological developments which have not weighting in the core practice and also some what difficult to answer in a definite way. So these kind of questions should be left aside for a while.

This doesn't answer the question.

This is how the artist created it. Just like modern day artists they have freedom to create art work. This is a cultural and artistic related question. There is not relevance to buddhism. The answer is is simply how the artist created the work.

Maybe you should edit your answer?

I am from a Theravada tradition. I am not sure I understand this aspect to edit my answer. Perhaps some one can help.

Hello @SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala. By saying (for example) "So these kind of questions should be left aside for a while." it doesn't answer the op question and also suggests that he shouldn't have asked. I'm sure you meant no harm but the answer wasn't helpful.

In the light that this is a Buddhist forum the Buddha'so own response for questions that do not lead to eradication of suffering should be left aside. I think we should be able to take the same stance. Look at Skills in Questions and Buddha's method of teaching.

This is a forum about Buddhism; it is not a Buddhist forum, per se. While we might want to incorporate some Buddhist values into the working of the site, we have to adhere at least to the basic SE framework, wherein if you have a problem with the question you should either leave a comment, vote to close it, or flag it, depending on the problem. An answer that doesn't actually provide the information asked for is not a valid answer on this site. But FWIW, I personally think your answer is a good one from a Buddhist POV.

I was initially doubtful as to what this was but in the light of the other answer I have not problem with the question. I was just trying direct the person on the direction I thought was right. Any suggestions on how I can change this so it adheres to the SE usage and also achieves my original goal (for others who may read this) of proper guidance with regard to the Theravada line of thought. I need some help here with the subject matter as I am not familiar with Zen (?) teachings.