text:
What is observing the precepts in a Hinayana way or a Mahayana way?
In Zen Mind, Beginners Mind Shunryu Suzuki says

observing the precepts in a Hinayana way is violating the precepts in
  a Mahayana way

Can an one give an explanation of way he is getting at here and perhaps a concrete instance of when that might occur.

The radical rejection of precepts as an important part of Buddhist monastic life is a Japanese thing. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva_Precepts#Japanese_traditions Elsewhere in the Mahayana world the vinaya was still respected, although adapted dramatically for local culture.

To avoid confusion - I base my understanding of the term 'Hinayana' on Andrei's answers to two different questions - this and that.
Hinayana way (or as Andrei puts it - level) refers to basic/elementary/foundational aspects of Buddhism. On this level precepts are central and students learn to follow basic discipline. The main idea is to work with one's own Karma - having a simple life protects one from difficult situations and clear-cut rules help in achieving that. However, this is not all that Buddhism offers. Once the foundations are understood, one can move on to more advanced teachings which can be called Mahayana-based (as Andrei pointed out, this can also happen in Theravada).
The main difference, as I understand it, is that it is the Bodhisattva Vow that is central in Mahayana level. Here, one is no longer worried about one's own Karma (like on the Hinayana level), but recognizes that there are countless beings who suffer and one wants to benefit them in the first place. One does not need a precept to know that killing or lying is bad. In every situation one has to be mindful and decide which action will bring more happiness or suffering to other beings. Sometimes lying is the right way to protect someone's life, sometimes eating enormous amounts of roast beef is the best way to make our auntie happy after she spent the whole day preparing this dish for her beloved family. No clear rules, rather guidelines and constant wish to benefit others.
I believe it all boils down to motivation - if you observe the precepts in fear of spoiling your own Karma - it is Hinayana level. If you are mostly interested in benefiting others - it is Mahayana. One view violates the other one.

(To add to Rabbit's answer, which is almost perfect as far as I can see...)
This refers to good old Spiritual Materialism.
"Observing the precepts in a Hinayana way" while "violating the precepts in a Mahayana way" is refraining from negative action with the egoistic intent of becoming a more spiritually advanced person.
In Mahayana, attitude is of utmost importance. Hinayana's attitude of purity is subsumed into Mahayana's attitude of altruism, and then again into Zen's attitude of non-duality.
Check out "Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa. Pages 294-316 cover this topic ("Transmutation of vows") in great details.

"I've a feeling that the way we are asking about precepts in these questions might not be from a Mahayana perspective" I am a Zen practitioner and I agree that i find many of the other questions you mentioned to be meaningless. To me as a Zen practitioner those questions are all about labels and the dharma is more about letting go and freeing oneself from these labels.
I have actually started frequenting these boards less because in my perspective I feel that many of the questions asked skirt around the dharma or at least focus in on the labels and names that have attached itself to the dharma over the years.
I do know however that this is merely my perspective as a Zen practitioner and many people might disagree with me.

"Freeing oneself from labels" - I guess when you say "I am a Zen practitioner" you mean this figuratively. I think words are fine but the association we have with them is somewhat questionable. We can't know the degree of believability someone has in their words.


text:
What are the main differences between the different Zen schools?
What are the main differences between the Rinzai and Soto Zen schools? Is it right that koans are only used in one of the schools? Also are there other Zen schools and if so what distinguishes those schools from the other Zen schools?

The most important differences between the two schools have to do with their style of meditation and ideas surrounding the attainment of enlightenment.  Soto takes a more gradual approach - kind of like a flower opening.  Just like a flower coming into bloom, it makes no sense to force anything.  Under the right conditions, and when cultivating tenderly, the mind will open of its own accord.
Conversely, Rinzai puts more emphasis on the possibility of sudden enlightenment.  One of the easiest ways to consider how koans work in this process is to think of samsara like a brick wall.  Investigating koans is like knocking a brick out.  A certain amount of light shines through once you see into an individuals koan's 'meaning'.  Eventually, like a brick wall, once you knock enough bricks out, the whole thing just suddenly collapses.  It's kinda like going broke - it happens gradually and then suddenly!  ;-)
Of course, a lot of Zen schools do incorporate elements of both practices.  Sometimes, a school with a more Soto emphasis may assign a student a koan.  It might also go the other way too, but that hasn't been my experience.

The main point is:
Soto school does Zazen.
Rinzai school works with Koans.

This is a very nice talk about the difference
Both are "sudden" schools of zen, and arguably the existence of a koan "course" means Rinzai is more gradual.
Which is not something I believe: in neither school is it over as soon as it begins.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How compatible are (Theravada) Buddhism and the Western life?
There are a lot of people practicing their religion at home (to some extent). But how practical is that for a Buddhist?
My question came boiling up when a family-member said that I ultimately have to choose between 'my western life' or becoming a Monk because they think they aren't compatible and to be honest, I don't really know.
I feel myself to become quite less social when I practice Buddhism which is by my knowledge a common reaction when you get to see things as they are. The Vinaya Pitika describes 227 rules to ordained Monks for the sake of becoming enlightened. There are many distractions which keeps you from the right path and you will break 220 on average each day.

Are you asking about compatibility with general Theravada Buddhism and modern western life or narrowly compatibility of the monastic vinaya and western life? The former is legal, the later is sometimes illegal (e.g. street begging is often against the law).  It was a document of it's time and place. Monastics a few hundred years later in China had to rewrite it to make it something that worked in a Chinese context. I expect the same for Buddhism in the west.

I want to point out the essence of Buddhism, which is to become enlightened. It's not only the rules that contradicts the law, but the moral precepts of the monastic with that in western countries. The question is if these could potentially lead to not becoming enlightened, which contradicts the fundamental goal of Buddhism? Sorry if that was not clear.

The vinaya is a mix of morality and house rules necessary to run a sangha of recent converts from all walks of life. The list of rules was an after thought after the Buddha became enlightened.  So the Buddha never said, follow these rules and you'll be enlightened. It was more like, follow these rules and you won't be so disruptive that we have to kick you out of the sangha.

I woud say Theravadan Buddhism is compatible with the West because it is already happening. Jack Kornfield studied with Ajahn Chah and then went on to found the Insight Meditation Centre which is partially inspired by this practice (though doesn't wholly identify as Theravadan). Ajahn Chah's lineage itself has come to the West with the  Thai Forest Tradition and to quote from here

They provide centres for monastic training, as well as, teaching and
  practice for the lay community.

So you don't need to be a monk to practice. My own group the Triratna Buddhists are also very influenced by Theravada Buddhism and we have no concept of monks. Even order members are considered to be lay followers.
As Buddhism moves Buddhism changes. As it moves into the West and as Western culture influences into the East then (Theravada) Buddhism will change. But Buddhism will always teach liberation - how could it be any other way. So I would humbly say that yes you can practice but the practice might not be quite as it was before.

I'm very aware that there are very committed Theravada practitioners on the site who I'm sure will have more (and different) to say. This is just my own very Westernised opinion.

That is a good point, it is true that you can ultimately practice Buddhism in most cultures as it is practiced in the West. However, you pointed out Buddhism will always teach liberation. But will it eventually lead to liberation too? The Western culture is known to be fast moving (science/technology), capitalistic and for its social/career pressures. I wonder if you could tell the difference of effects in a sense of understanding and realization which is of course hard, if not impossible to tell.

@JordyvanEkelen whether Western culture helps or hinders practice generally is a hugely interesting point. I know many Westerners that believe that there is something about Western society that makes Buddhist practice more difficult or even impossible. I've always disputed that. I think it's a golden age - access to all the Dharma in history, access to teachers, freedom of worship and expression. I think that us in the West are very fortunate indeed. (it's a controversial opinion)

In my humble opinion, Buddhism meshes with the nobler aspects of western culture much better than most western religions. Buddhism has a system of ethics for lay people which is based not on appeals to authority but on what leads to true happiness, which is actually identical to the virtue ethics of most ancient Greek schools of philosophy for example, and the Buddha seems to have been a fan of democracy, setting up the Sangha of Monks and Nuns to make decisions by voting in a formal assembly in their communities, and the Buddha even gave a parable which seems to lay out a theory of government based on popular sovereignty in DN 27 ( http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/AggannaSutta.pdf )
On top of it all, Buddhism rejects tradition and scripture as sources of authority, offering people not the all too familiar "Convert or burn in hell" line, but a confident "Don't take our word for it, test the teachings out for yourself!" attitude that fits much better with our much more empirical mindset.
Quite frankly, a lot of the things people point to as being major cultural barriers are quite superficial things like bowing, chanting, and other things which are by their nature supplementary to the teachings anyways.

Even in Asia, you have to leave the lay life, if you are to become a monk. Once you become a monk, your culture doesn't matter. You belong to the Sangha. There are many Theravada Sangha in the world with western origins. Ex: Venerable Yuttadhammo, Venerable Bodhi, Venerable Ajahn Brahm. etc. They are hardly anti-social. Look at how many lay followers they have. You don't have to compromise on Vinaya rules to be a benefit to the society.
Even if you stay as a lay person, you don't have to kill, steal, sexually misbehave, lie or get drunk to be social.

I don't tend to agree to the part stating these people did not became anti social because it is a normal cause. One who pragmatically practices Buddhism gains insight and understanding of reality and will most likely become less social as the need for social participation reduces because one loses the interest due letting go of the clinging to relationships/social need.

I think the mistake is on my side here though, because I should have wrote 'less social' rather than 'anti-social'.

Less social in conventional ways perhaps, but sharing the Dhamma keeps people connected in a type of "social" way. The Buddha certainly remained connected to society to teach them.

Sangha become less social, if they go into the forest to meditate. Or if they were celebrities in lay life. Otherwise, they can actually become more social as they tend to interact even with strangers. Not just relatives and friends. Just that most of the people they usually interact with are the ones who are interested in the Dhamma. That makes them more social in a more beneficial way.

I believe first you need to decide if you want to be a monk or keep as a lay buddhist. If you want to follow the lay buddhist path, there is nothing wrong with the west or our modern life, you just have to keep the 5 preceps, not really complicated.
If you want to become a monk, you just need to join a Sangha and that can be in the east or west, it doesn't make much difference these days if you find a serious place to practice.
Just to complicate a little bit...I used to question myself: If I truly believe in the Buddha why not becoming a monk? It is not the only way, but that was his way, there is clearly something special to be acquired following the Vinaya and everything... so why be satisfied with lay life? it is a hard question, but very, very personal.

I speculate about that every now and then and it is indeed a very intriguing question with a very personal answer, and I don't have one myself although I must say I sometimes reckon these thoughts as doubt.

Householder Jordy van Ekelen, interested,
Right View and the Buddhas original tradition goes totally against modern and western views, so even if tending to right view, it will be hard to practice born and dwell under people with wrong views, thinking in ways or rights and regard all equal.
Gifted therefore who resists on suitable place and if not yet, one should try to build on Upanissaya that one of the main requisites and Maha Mangala would arise for one.
There are less places left in the world where right views, at large are still regarded and not replaced by Marxist or Materialistic Views.
Modern/Western "buddist" communities actually have already addopted those popular views and would be not really able to provide the basics in good manner. But one should not think that in the traditional countries, in the most of them, the tendency is not already modern, western... so hurry up, this traddition is disappearing much more fast as most think, incl. sadly often lead by monks into wrong direction and for the benefits in the world!
Some accounts on it:
To reside in a suitable location... is the highest blessing
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Some aspects of western life is compatible with Theravada Buddhism, and some are not.
What is not compatible with Theravada Buddhism? Materialism and free consumption of alcohol are prominent examples, and applies to most western countries. But to be honest, materialism applies to most of the world, anyway.
In some western countries (and not all), there may be free consumption of drugs, habitual speaking of untruth (or perhaps, deceptiveness), legalized prostitution, strip clubs and sexual behavior like swapping partners - these are not compatible with Buddhism, because they are either not compatible with the five precepts, or because they are not compatible with Right Livelihood.
What is compatible with Theravada Buddhism? I would say plenty. Much more than what is not compatible.
The Buddhist qualities of charity and compassion are quite compatible with western countries that have a system of social welfare, for e.g. Scandinavian countries.
In some western countries like Germany, people culturally have the quality of being straightforward and truthful, as well as have the tendency to obey the law and rules, even when nobody is watching. This is compatible with the Buddhist precept of speaking the truth and also the Buddhist quality of heedfulness.
In many western countries, people are generally not in favour of superstition, astrology, palmistry, geomancy, divination, identifying astrologically auspicious dates, ceremonial idol worship etc. This is very compatible with Theravada Buddhism (see DN 2). Even some majority Buddhist Asian countries like Thailand and Myanmar fail here.
Many western countries are in favour of the separation of religion and government. This is also compatible with Theravada Buddhism (see DN 2). Again, some majority Buddhist Asian countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka seem to fail here.
Western countries are among the most atheistic countries in the world, with the notable exception of the United States. This too is very much compatible with Theravada Buddhism, but incompatible with Christianity and Judaism.
Many western countries tend to have greater acceptance of sexual orientation diversity, similar to Thailand. This too is in some way more compatible with Buddhism, than say, certain denominations of western Christianity.
Roman Catholicism does not allow women to become priests, and it seems that some Thai monastic orders do not allow women to become nuns. This is not compatible with western culture that tends to favour equal rights for women. The Buddha allowed both men and women to join the monastic order, and did not exclude women from the possibility of becoming arahants. In this way, Theravada Buddhism (based on the Buddha's original teachings) is quite compatible with the western quality of giving equal rights to women.
That said, many of the mentioned Buddhism-compatible qualities of certain western countries can also be found in parts of Asia.

Western life is the complete opposite to any kind of authentinc spiritual path. This comes especially obvious as you become more spiritually advanced. If you want to advance spiritually you need instructions from a quaified teacher and an authentic spiritual culture or community where people practice and live original teachings of Buddha. One of the aspects of Noble Eightfold Path is Right Livelihood.

"complete opposite to any kind of authentinc spiritual path", yes. But how comes that so many western feel that they are spirituall? Maybe they take red as a spiritual color?

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


text:
How to know who is a good monk?
I'm a Buddhist and I want to know who is a good monk.
Tell me if I'm wrong but I think that monks

Do not request money/things
Follow the rules
Do not bless for to be rich... (Its passion)

etc...
But how do I explain to a non-buddhist how to recognise a good monk?

Welcome to Buddhism SE. I've taken the liberty of editing your question for clarity. But I'm unsure of what 'Do not bless for to be rich... (Its passion)' means. Is it that a monk shouldn't want to be rich?

@CrabBucket I believe they're referring to giving blessings like "may you be rich" to the laity.

This answer is for teachers but you can also get some good guidelines for any kind of monk. It also has useful references that are worth investigating.

I see the original question as been modified when I went online again.  The original question included "hinting/asking"
I have included this under wrong livelihood.
How to know who is a good monk is a little more difficult to know than who is a bad monk.  People will judge differently on what factors makes one a good monk.  We can start with morality according to the monks rules which he has an obligation to follow. There are a few easy signs that one is a bad monk.
When he goes out into the village, if he has one shoulder exposed, this is a very clear sign that he breaks most of the rules.  If he has both shoulders covered, that means he follows this rule, but maybe not others.  This is just a quick way to throw out the majority of monks into the bad monk pile.  Unfortunately, most monks in Myanmar break this rule and that also means that most monks break most of the rules.
Monks need to follow all of the rules 227 rules and also the rules in the Culavagga and Mahavagga.  Likewise, they need to follow according to the commentaries as well in most cases.
Most Western Bhikkhus do not like the commentaries.  That is where "interpretations" can come.
Most of the information below, is from the BMC The Buddhist Monastic Code
Summary:
A Bhikkhu cannot use money.
A Bhikkhu cannot point out a kappiya without someone asking, "Who is you kappiya?"
A Bhikkhu cannot accept envelopes presumably with money inside.  It is an asannya offence (in the root text).   Which means, no perception is necessary for it to be unallowable.  That means the monks should not be intentionally ignorant.  The BMC debates and allows the modern use of "checks."
A Bhikkhu cannot ask for things from "Just anyone". He needs an invitation from a non-family member ( blood relation)
A Bhikkhu cannot hint to "Just anyone" (as above)
A Bhikkhu cannot do the above for another bhikkhu(s) either.
The BMC says checks are not money but a "promise to pay."  Sri Lanka and Myanmar Vinaya traditions call this money.  Money is defined as anything accepted as used in trade.  A US dollar is a mere bank note too.  Google "A Life Free From Money pdf"
The same as above is judged with signing checks.
A bhikkhu can ask for a bowl from anyone if it is broken or stolen.
A bhikkhu can ask for a single robe from anyone if he is left with only one (of three).
A bhikkhu can go for alms in the evening for "extra items," usually medicine or oil for light. The donors will offer food and he will refuse.  Then the person may ask, "what do you need?" Then he can say.
Lay people or committees can ask "just anyone" for things or money, etc. for monks if it is their own idea.   This might be what you are seeing on brochures and websites, etc.
A Bhikkhu cannot ask his helper, committee etc,  to ask others for money for himself.
A bhikkhu must be invited by a committee or kappiya before he asks them for things.
The above list is followed correctly unfortunately by a small minority of monks, known as vinaya monks, or forest monks.  Often the other (majority) monks do not know what proper behavior is.  They may memorize the rules, but do not think it is something to be practiced since corruption is so wide spread.  One of my monastic friends told me he cried when he found out that he was never supposed to touch money.   A monk may purify himself at any time.
Often, they just do not know.
Traditions often have interpretations which makes items seem "allowable.". Sometimes this is allowed and sometimes one can just be fooling oneself.  In the end it is up to them.  Often bhikkhus do not reflect or question questionable practices in a tradition because of the wide spread use.  Money and medicines are often such topics.

"Monks, strive with heedfulness.  Rare is it that Buddhas arise in the
  world.  Rare is it that [one] it that [one] obtains a human [birth].
  Rare is it to have the good fortune of [being in the right] time [and
  place].  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to take the Going
  forth.  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to listen to the
  True Dhamma.  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to associate
  with good people." (c.f. D.32.33 & A.8:29)

BMC I, 2009 ed. pdf
Monks must also practice right livelihood according to not doing things from the list below:

Wrong Livelihood The Cullavagga, in a section that begins with the
  same origin story as the one for this rule (Cv.I.13-16), treats the
  banishment transaction in full detail, saying that a Community of
  bhikkhus, if it sees fit, has the authority to perform a banishment
  transaction against a bhikkhu with any of the following qualities:
1) He is a maker of strife, disputes, quarrels, and issues in the
  Community.
2) He is inexperienced, incompetent, and indiscriminately full of
  offenses (§).
3) He lives in unbecoming association with householders.
4) He is corrupt in his precepts, corrupt in his conduct, or corrupt
  in his views.   5) He speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, Dhamma, or
  Saṅgha.
6) He is frivolous in word, deed, or both.
7) He misbehaves in word, deed, or both.
8) He is vindictive in word, deed, or both.
9) He practices wrong modes of livelihood.  This last category
  includes such practices as:
a) running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state,
  householders, etc. A modern example would be participating in
  political campaigns.
b) scheming, talking, hinting, belittling others for the sake of
  material gain, pursuing gain with gain (giving items of small value in
  hopes of receiving items of larger value in return, making investments
  in hopes of profit, offering material incentives to those who make
  donations). (For a full discussion of these practices, see
  Visuddhimagga I.61-82.)
c) Practicing worldly arts, e.g., medicine, fortune telling,
  astrology, exorcism, reciting charms, casting spells, performing
  ceremonies to counteract the influence of the stars, determining
  propitious sites, setting auspicious dates (for weddings, etc.),
  interpreting oracles, auguries, or dreams, or — in the words of the
  Vibhaṅga to the Bhikkhunīs' Pc 49 & 50 — engaging in any art that is
  "external and unconnected with the goal." The Cullavagga (V.33.2)
  imposes a dukkaṭa on studying and teaching worldly arts or hedonist
  doctrines (lokāyata).
For extensive lists of worldly arts, see the passage from DN 2 quoted
  in BMC2, Chapter 10.
BMC I Lists wrong livelihood extensively starting on page 518 PDF ed.

"Medicines"
There are some things in the BMC which I think are very misleading, especially concerning, "medicines" and how "Any Reason" is defined (p232).  I could not find any pāli evidence that mentions "hunger and fatigue" as a valid medical reason.  I could be wrong, but I asked a couple of knowledgeable monks to verify this and they also agreed with my findings.  This would exclude many things which are considered medicines.
I will not cover further with lists of the "medicines."  Only that there should be a valid reason for taking them and justifying their use after Noon.
The reflection and criteria are below.  It is in every monastery chanting book and should be chanted every day.  (Nauyana chanting book source)
"Medicine Reflection"

Whatever requisite of medicine for treating illness has been used by
  me today without reflection was only to ward off painful feelings that
  have arisen, [and] for the  maximum freedom from disease.

There are two high level qualities you have to look at:

Adhere to the Vinaya
Practice meditation regularly

There are other qualities but the most important of them are the above.

From the Ajaniya Sutta, we find that the ideal monk should be consummate in beauty, strength and speed (like a thoroughbred horse):

"In the same way, a monk endowed with these three qualities is worthy
  of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which three?
  There is the case where a monk is consummate in beauty, consummate in
  strength, and consummate in speed.
"And how is a monk consummate in beauty? There is the case where a
  monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the
  Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains
  himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the
  slightest fault. This is how a monk is consummate in beauty.
"And how is a monk consummate in strength? There is the case where a
  monk keeps his persistence aroused for abandoning unskillful mental
  qualities and taking on skillful mental qualities. He is steadfast,
  solid in his effort, not shirking his duties with regard to skillful
  mental qualities. This is how a monk is consummate in strength.
"And how is a monk consummate in speed? There is the case where a monk
  discerns as it actually is present that 'This is stress.' He discerns
  as it actually is present that 'This is the origination of stress.' He
  discerns as it actually is present that 'This is the cessation of
  stress.' He discerns as it actually is present that 'This is the path
  of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is how a monk is
  consummate in speed.

From the Akkhama Sutta, we find that the ideal monk should be resilient to sights, sounds, aromas, flavors and tactile sensations :

"In the same way, a monk endowed with five qualities is deserving of
  gifts, deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which five? There
  is the case where a monk is resilient to sights, resilient to sounds,
  resilient to aromas, resilient to flavors, resilient to tactile
  sensations.
"And how is a monk resilient to sights? There is the case where a
  monk, on seeing a sight with the eye, feels no passion for a sight
  that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a monk is
  resilient to sights.
"And how is a monk resilient to sounds? There is the case where a
  monk, on hearing a sound with the ear, feels no passion for a sound
  that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a monk is
  resilient to sounds.
"And how is a monk resilient to aromas? There is the case where a
  monk, on smelling an aroma with the nose, feels no passion for an
  aroma that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a monk
  is resilient to aromas.
"And how is a monk resilient to flavors? There is the case where a
  monk, on tasting a flavor with the tongue, feels no passion for a
  flavor that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a
  monk is resilient to flavors.
"And how is a monk resilient to tactile sensations? There is the case
  where a monk, on touching a tactile sensation with the body, feels no
  passion for a tactile sensation that incites passion and can center
  his mind. This is how a monk is resilient to tactile sensations.
"Endowed with these five qualities, a monk is deserving of gifts,
  deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world."

The Sotar Sutta describes how an ideal monk should be a listener, a destroyer, a protector, an endurer and a goer.

"In the same way, a monk endowed with five qualities is deserving of
  gifts, deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which five? There
  is the case where a monk is a listener, a destroyer, a protector, an
  endurer, and a goer.
"And how is a monk a listener? There is the case where, when the
  Dhamma & Discipline declared by the Tathagata is being taught, a monk
  pays attention, applies his whole mind, and lends ear to the Dhamma.
  This is how a monk is a listener.
"And how is a monk a destroyer? There is the case where a monk does
  not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys
  it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate an
  arisen thought of ill will... an arisen thought of cruelty... He does
  not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons
  them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. This
  is how a monk is a destroyer.
"And how is a monk a protector? There is the case where a monk, on
  seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or particulars
  by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of
  the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might
  assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards the faculty of the
  eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye.
"On hearing a sound with the ear...
"On smelling an aroma with the nose...
"On tasting a flavor with the tongue...
"On touching a tactile sensation with the body...
"On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any
  theme or particulars by which — if he were to dwell without restraint
  over the faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as
  greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He
  guards the faculty of the intellect. He achieves restraint with regard
  to the faculty of the intellect.
"This is how a monk is a protector.
"And how is a monk an endurer? There is the case where a monk is
  resilient to cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies,
  mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words &
  bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
  piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. This is how a
  monk is an endurer.
"And how is a monk a goer? There is the case where a monk goes right
  away to that direction to which he has never been before in the course
  of this long stretch of time — in other words, to the resolution of
  all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending
  of craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding. This is how a monk is a
  goer.
"Endowed with these five qualities a monk is deserving of gifts,
  deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world."

The Ajanna Sutta states how an ideal monk should have eight qualities.

"In the same way, a monk endowed with eight qualities is worthy of
  gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect,
  an incomparable field of merit for the world. Which eight?
(1) "There is the case where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained
  in accordance with the Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere
  of activity. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules,
  seeing danger in the slightest faults.
(2) "When given food, whether coarse or refined, he eats it carefully,
  without complaining.
(3) "He feels disgust at bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental
  misconduct, at the development of evil, unskillful [mental] qualities.
(4) "He is composed & easy to live with, and doesn't harass the other
  monks.
(5) "Whatever tricks or deceits or wiles or subterfuges he has, he
  shows them as they actually are to the Teacher or to his knowledgeable
  companions in the holy life, so that the Teacher or his knowledgeable
  companions in the holy life can try to straighten them out.
(6) "When in training he gives rise to the thought, 'Whether the other
  monks want to train or not, I'll train here.'
(7) "When going, he goes the straight path; here the straight path is
  this: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
(8) "He dwells with his persistence aroused, [thinking,] 'Gladly would
  I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin,
  tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached
  through human steadfastness, human persistence, human striving, there
  will be no relaxing my persistence.'"
"Endowed with these eight qualities, a monk is worthy of gifts, worthy
  of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, an
  incomparable field of merit for the world."

ask questions...
but Monks are essentially people also, Your practice isnt dependent on theirs, same for your progress vs. theirs.
If you are getting opinions, know that they are simply opinions. if you are getting textual facts... a well studied monk is the place to go. If you are just curious of opinions... this is more appropriate than a Monastery.
but more directly...
- they dont usually ask for things, so please offer anything you may think could be useful for them.
- They do live according to the Vinaya Pitaka.
- What do you mean by bless?... their knowledge is available to all, they dont generally reguard people by economic status and if they do it tends to be focusing on the less fortunate in a helpful way (in my experience). The rich (who are involved) tend to bless them actually...with various things.


text:
How can one define luxurious beds and seats in the eighth precept?
The precept,

Uccasayana mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

in eight precepts suggests that one should abstain from high and luxurious beds and seats. How should one define which bed or seat is not high and which one is not luxurious?
Can this precept be practiced at home?

It's an interesting question; for lay people, I've never been able to well-define this one. I usually translate it as "don't get attached to the pleasure of lying down or sleeping." But, we should probably go with the Buddha's words for monastics in the Brahmajala Sutta:

"Or he might say: 'Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on food offered by the faithful, enjoy the use of high and luxurious beds and seats, such as: spacious couches; thrones with animal figures carved on the supports; long-haired coverlets; multi-colored patchwork coverlets; white woollen coverlets; woollen coverlets embroidered with flowers; quilts stuffed with cotton; woollen coverlets embroidered with animal figures; woollen coverlets with hair on both sides or on one side; bedspreads embroidered with gems; silk coverlets; dance-hall carpets; elephant, horse or chariot rugs; rugs of antelope-skins; choice spreads made of kadali-deer hides; spreads with red awnings overhead; couches with red cushions for the head and feet — the recluse Gotama abstains from the use of such high and luxurious beds and seats.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

I would venture to guess that modern spring beds of all kinds could arguably be included in this list.

Thank you Ven Yuttadhammo. I guess then I can't sleep on my bed. Perhaps sleep on the floor on such a day?

I don't think that it's likely that as laypeople there is much to be said from a legalistic analysis of one fibre over another or establish some maximum furniture height. If we lie on the floor with some outer clothes thrown over we on those days we choose, we can benefit from that. It seems likely that central heating or aircon may be more of a modern concern. But it's for you (and me) to decide whether we want to adopt a in-the-word or in-the-spirit interpretation: neither seems inherently looser.

I have used a camping air mattress on the floor for 3 years now. It is as comfortable as any bed I have ever had and costs $20 (an expensive dinner, for me). I don't mind being at floor level, but then I am on the second floor of a modern building, with no rats, snakes or even insects walking around. Being off the floor might be necessary in some cases, without it being for the sake of ego.

I think that part of the reason for this precept was that high and luxurious seating  has pretty much always existed for the sole purpose of setting the seated personage above those around them (often literally as well as figuratively), and that there is attachment in this kind of luxury.
If you examine our most ancient notions about royalty and power, you will find that these are very often associated with some ornate or large furniture.  Etymologically, we say the "seat" of power, for example.
I think that, when attempting to practice this precept at home, ask yourself: "what are my desires and intentions in owning this or that bed or chair?  Do I seek to set myself above others, to project my opulence and status in any small way?  Is the purpose of this furniture strictly functional, or is it decorated and flourished to convey said opulence and status in any way? Do I feel that I deserve this luxury?"  I think, in the answers to these questions (and bearing the Middle Way in mind), you will be able to determine whether you are breaking this precept for yourself.

Try asking yourself the following. Does your home cause others to suffer? Does your bed cause more suffering to others than it needs to? Try to have a home, bed, and chairs that reduce the amount of suffering in the world.
I would look at the question, why does this precept exist? Because beds, chairs, and homes cause suffering. This precept exists to help us be mindful of the suffering of others and to take steps to lessen that suffering even in our beds, chairs, and homes.

Other answers talked about setting yourself above others.
Even without that (e.g. when sleeping in private) I think there might be another effect, i.e. that "sleeping in my own bed makes me feel at home".
So a camping mattress might counter-act that?
But as @user2341 said, I find an air mattress "as comfortable as any bed I have ever had" (no hardship).
Another option is a store-bought futon on the floor -- that is not very high (its thickness, several centimetres). Again I found that perfectly comfortable, though someone once told me that they didn't.
In this video -- Meditation before Sleeping -- Ven. Yuttadhammo mentioned,

Thai monk mattresses are "torture devices", just two bits of cloth, with lumpy fibre inside, on a wooden parquet floor.

... because it is ...

retraining -- normally when we lie down we enjoy the pleasure of the softness of our beds (which is why we have people sleep on the floor).


text:
Attending my first Buddhist Retreat
This weekend I will be attending my first retreat with Zen monks. It is at a camp ground and I will be camping in a tent for the weekend. Does anyone have any advice on attending a retreat for the first time? Is there anything I should expect, or bring that I might not think of? Any advice or experiences with retreats and facing monks for the first time will be appreciated.
May you be happy.
Bowing to you.

Don't expect anything. Bring an open heart. The more open you are, the more you will receive.

My guess is that you can probably expect an orientation first.   All the same, it really depends on the group and the nature of the retreat.  If it's a formal sesshin, you've got a lot to expect.  For one, the energy will be amazing.  Zen is sesshin and sesshin is Zen.  There are no words that can describe what the experience is like!  As for the more mundane - there will be no talking.  These retreats are silent, but if you have a question about what you should be doing for a work period or what have you, you aren't violating any rules if you approach a senior student with a question.  Also regarding the talking bit - you will be given a chance to talk to the guy in charge during dokusan.  Try to save your practice related questions for then.  Two, your legs will hurt...a lot!!!  Expect this from the get go, but don't be afraid of it (easy to say, right??).  Stretching a bit helps purge your muscles of the lactic acid that builds up.  Oh, and during meal times, if they give you a yellowish looking pickle, don't eat it!  You use that to wash your bowl.  You can eat it after.  ;-)
All in all, just do the the best you can.  No one sits like a stone on their first retreat.  It takes years of practice to get to that point.  Also, don't expect any earth shattering revelations or anything of the sort.  The world will seem to move a lot faster once you come back home, though.  This will last a couple of days.  It will also be a bit easier dealing with stressful situations, your mind will a bit clearer, and you'll just be kinda happy for no reason.  That should whet your appetite to go back!

Quick tips:

Follow the 5 precepts
Do attend to all classes/discussion groups etc...
Focus on your meditation practice,
Learn how to deal with distractions, back pain, etc...
Enjoy inner peace! :)


text:
Full view on right livelihood
I have seen some questions on what the scope of right/wrong livelihood is, however most of the questions I have seen only touch on a specific point, so I would like to consolidate these questions and include new ones, so we can have a better view to comment on:

If I work on a controversial industry (alcohol/weapons/pesticide/tobacco...) but doing a job not directly related to the product, not making, not selling, not marketing it (HR/Finance for instance...). Is that a breach of right livelihood?
If I work in a meat business in a simple position, let's say a cashier in mcdonalds selling burgers, is that a breach of right livelihood?
If I'm a shareholder of such companies and earn dividends (mcdonalds, brewers, etc) is that a breach?
If I work in a controversial business and tried to leave it several times, but couldn't find anything else, and was dependent on it to live, is that right livelihood?

Where are the borders drawn for right livelihood in cases like these?


text:
Maintaining the emotional state achieved in meditation through the rest of the day
I've been practicing meditation for a while now, basic breathing and mindfulness meditation, and lately I've added some contemplation to my "routines", usually with music, and the result is absolutely phenomenal. In those 20-30 minutes I literally reach an emotional bliss that is unequal and it has transferred to my daily life and helped me a lot. I literally was suicidal some months ago and awareness and facing my issues with meditation along with Buddhist philosophy literally saved my life.
Now my problem is if i keep this, please don't take this as arrogance, "Buddha state" ,only connected to my meditation time and broken moments of the day would that not be also attachment?. Is having the ability to at any moment be aware and blissful the desired Buddha state?. Is this something that will come with the more practice than I have or am i missing something that will improve even more my meditation experience?

These are the right questions to be asking. This is the heart of the path. I don't have any answers for you, but I do think you are going in the right direction from what I can tell.

If I can answer this from my personal experiences.
I had very strong experiences when I stated to meditate almost immediately. Anxiety seem to shift and I had a great deal of clarity. One day after 6 months of meditating I was sat on a bus and I suddenly achieve an amazing amount of clarity and well-being. I felt very very aware. I remember not being phased by this and thinking "well I guess that's what meditation and Buddhism does". The state of mind lasted 2 or 3 days and gradually faded. It never came back and things settled down into a more steady (even mundane) set of meditation experiences.
My own experience is that when one starts to meditate a lot of things can happen and a lot of things can unwind at once. This was amazing for me and sounds like amazing for you. However I found that these states don't last and are impossible to maintain. Since one of the Buddha's central teachings is impermanence that's not surprising - how could they last? I have always been advised not to get attached to these feelings and states of mind. Attachment to them is still attachment and is a hindrance to the path. They are great though and can be incredibly motivating and inspiring. It's just important to see them for what they are.
What does last is any insights or just feelings into how things actually are. I found it an overwhelming experience that my thoughts are not under my direct control and just arise and pass away. I'm not saying that's an incredible or even valid insight but it's something that is still with me from that time.

This pleasurable state that you are attaining during meditation is simply the result of concentration. These states can be developed in different directions within the Buddhist path, but if their place is not properly understood, they can in time become a hindrance.
This bliss isn't enlightenment unfortunately. The goal of Buddhist meditation is to attain clarity of mind and concentration in order to see that reality is impermanent, unable to give us stable and lasting pleasure, and non-self. When these are fully realized, the mediator will be able to at least temporarily let go totally of all attachment and experience the happiness of Nibbana (or Nirvana in Sanskrit), a happiness that is totally distinct from everything else in this world. When this is realized repeatedly, one can eventually become a fully enlightened Arahat, in which one is perfectly happy at all times because has no attachment and is content with whatever comes to be.
In order to progress towards this enlightenment you must understand that these states are a step on the path, and that they are a powerful tool, but not a goal in and of themselves. At this stage you have a choice in how to continue in practice. Option one is to continue to practice meditation the way you are (although there will come a point when the music will prevent deeper concentration, but if you really want to, continuing it for now isn't the worst thing in the world). It is possible to develop this into a powerful state of concentration and peace called Jhana in which the perception of the body totally vanishes. A good book explaining how to do this (you might be able to find it in pdf form here: http://www.dhammatalks.net/ ) is the book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm. He has a lot of other books on practicing the Jhanas as well.
Eventually, even with attaining jhanas, you will need to also develop a quality of mind called Vipassana. You can switch over to practicing Vipassana meditation now as well, or you can switch later. There are several different styles of Vipassana meditation. There is the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition of Vipassana meditation, the Goenka tradition, and some of the practices of the Thai forest tradition such as meditation as taught by the Ven. Thannisaro Bhikku can be classefied as Vipassana meditation.
One of the best resources for learning the Mahasi Sayadaw style meditation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLvU7ppM4vE&list=PLAFC00C07636BE277
It is taught by the Ven. Yuttadhammo, an excellent monk who I can personally attest to as having tremendous wisdom and teaching ability. I consider myself to be a follower of his even though I myself don't practice the Mahasi Sayadaw method, I find his advice to be spot on. I would also highly recommend watching this video of his as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUkzRcNhK8
You can find some writings of Ajahn Thanisarro on that dhammatalks.net site. He can also be quite helpful although he isn't very explicit in talking about vipassana specifically, if you want to continue your concentration style practice this is good because he incorporates both aspects of teaching. He has a book of meditation instructions here: http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/EachAndEveryBreath_v130117.pdf

Thank you for not only passing on knowledge,but again showing that i actually know very little in regards to buddhism,and the amount of possibilities and outcomes just makes it even more interresting

One of the nature of our self is that we are not in absolute control. Some presentness due to meditation may persist with a higher degree of probability but there is not saying that something or mood will not occur for certainty. Nor there is any technique to prevent them with absolute certainty.
Basically what you can do is if you are waiting and some times not doing anything make it a chance to do some Breath meditation (without letting others know you are doing it as people might start looking at you funny if they get to know). This will give you a boost to keeping up the presentness with a higher degree of probability.

As you move further on the path you tend to move more and more into the four heavenly abodes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara.
With Ken Wilber terminology, there is stages and there are states, states are temporary whereas when you reach a stage you stay there. When close to moving on the next stage you more frequently experience higher states. Any state can be reached temporarily from any stage though.
Bliss can be both be a hindrance and an inspiration in meditation, we tend to want it again and cling to it. Because of that glimpses of realization early on in the practice may be problematic. This is natural, all beings want to be happy.
May you be happy, go on and get back to the practice.


text:
What is the antidote for conceit (mana)?
It is said that in exerting four right efforts, one should try to replace unwholesome thought with wholesome thought.
Example, one should think of loving-kindness when ill-will thought arises.
So what should one contemplates for mana?

What should one contemplate for mana?
Here's what the early texts say:

He should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the
  conceit, 'I am.' For a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of
  not-self is made firm. One perceiving not-self attains the uprooting
  of the conceit, 'I am' — Unbinding in the here & now."
-Ud 4.1, AN 9.1, AN 9.3

"When a monk's awareness often remains steeped in the perception of
  not-self in what is stressful, his heart is devoid of I-making &
  my-making with regard to this conscious body and externally with
  regard to all themes, has transcended pride, is at peace, and is
  well-released. If, when a monk's awareness often remains steeped in
  the perception of not-self in what is stressful, his heart is not
  devoid of I-making & my-making with regard to this conscious body and
  externally with regard to all themes, has not transcended pride, is
  not at peace, and is not well-released, then he should realize, 'I
  have not developed the perception of not-self in what is stressful;
  there is no step-by-step distinction in me; I have not arrived at the
  fruit of [mental] development.' In that way he is alert there. But if,
  when a monk's awareness often remains steeped in the perception of
  not-self in what is stressful, his heart is devoid of I-making &
  my-making with regard to this conscious body and externally with
  regard to all themes, has transcended pride, is at peace, and is
  well-released, then he should realize, 'I have developed the
  perception of not-self in what is stressful; there is a step-by-step
  distinction in me; I have arrived at the fruit of [mental]
  development.' In that way he is alert there.
-AN 7.46

Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see so that, in
  regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external
  signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit
  no longer occur within?”
“Any kind of form whatsoever, Rahula, whether past, future, or
  present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
  far or near—one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom
  thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever …
  Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of
  consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal
  or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—one
  sees all consciousness as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This
  is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
-SN 22.91, SN 22.92

It seems it's not easy to overcome conceit until one achieved some level(in realizing noble truths). I found that brahmavihāras is said to be useful as antidote for pride.

Conceit doesn't convey the full meaning of 'Māna' in Buddhism. 'Māna' is measuring. You can measure yourself against others in three ways,

I am better than him
I am worse than him
I am equal to him

However, I assume your question is on conceit, so here are some methods discussed here to tackle conceit, some of them are applicable for mana as well. On a practical aspect, the 4th and 1st methods have been very helpful to me whenever conceit arises.

Recognize Conceit whenever he pops up and name him. This as readers will remember is the advise given by Nyanaponika Thera in his valuable articles in "Sangha". Mara, like Satan, hates to be recognized. This practice is doubly effective because it "keeps one on one's toes," and induces a real dislike of the tendency.
Get back to the first two "steps" of the Noble Eightfold Path
  (a) Right Understanding of the mental quality or capacity involved: to see according to reality "This (quality) is not mine; I am not this; there is no self in it"
  (b) Right Aspiration towards the expunging of Conceit.
The method of analysis is also helpful. "I" am being praised for some real or imagined virtue, say generosity. Generosity is non-greed (alobha) one of the Good Roots, and as such appears in the list of dharmas given in the Abhidharma philosophy. According to Mahayana "All dharmas are empty of own-being" — that is to say they are non-existent. Therefore "I" am being praised for something which doesn't exist. This is so absurd that it knocks the bottom out of my conceit
Alternatively "I" am the result of past kamma. My talents are not due to my own virtue, but have arisen on account of the skilled actions performed by vanished personalities whose kammic descendant "I" am. Therefore it is silly of me to be conceited about qualities which are not in any real sense "mine."

Small addition: Māna is not only comparing yourself with others. The closest English word for māna is measure or measuring, whether it's against others or not. It's defining yourself in any kind of way. The most common ones are, as you say, better, worse & equal but it's not limited to these. Although the question didn't ask for a definition of Māna, I hope this improves your answer.

You are correct it's measure, not comparing. I struggled to put my thoughts into proper words. Isn't defining yourself different from measuring? Can you mention what are the other ways of measuring, because I've not heard beyond these three.

Defining oneself is thinking "I am this, that, better, worse, etc." so in the context of the Buddha's teachings I guess it can also mean māna. But I can also understand if one uses 'measure' with the sense of comparing and 'defining' without that sense. As for the second question, you can also define or measure yourself in regards to the past & future for example. You can check out AN 4.200 (towards the end) to see some examples. You can also see the last verse of SN 5.2.


text:
Does Zen Buddhism have canonical texts?
I'm aware that Theravada, Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism have a canon of texts. However I have never heard of a canon for Zen Buddhism. Does it have a canon or does it just not bother with such a thing? If it doesn't have a canon of texts then are there texts which can seen as foundational?

Zen Buddhism is part of East Asian Buddhism in general and accepts the entire Chinese Canon, although they don't find a lot of it to be relavent to their practice. Zen Buddhism has always been based primarily off of the meditation practice itself combined with oral teaching, but even if Zen isn't purely derived from the Sutras in the way other schools are, the Sutras are still a very important part of Zen learning.
Originally the main text for the Zen school was the Lankavatara sutra, but as time went on, this very difficult Sutra became less popular and the Diamond Sutra became a much more central text, along with the Heart Sutra. The Platform Sutra which actually tells the story of Huineng, the sixth patriarch of Zen, and how he rose to prominence also became a primary text.
A treatise called the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana was very influential, and the Sutra it was based on, the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment also had a good deal of influence, although it isn't quite as famous these days.
Next in importance to these canonical texts are the two famous Koan collections, the Gateless Gate and the Blue Cliff record, at least in the traditions where Koan is a major focus. For the Soto Zen School which began to de-emphasize Koan practice, the great classic is the treatise called the Shobogenzo, written by Dogen Zenji, the Soto Schools founder.
Those are all the major zen texts I could think of.
(Added in later):
There are a few others I forgot about. All of the Sutras that are about Buddha nature (The Tathagatagarbha Sutra, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Srimaladevi Sutra, and especially the Lotus Sutra were very important in Zen. Also, the Uttaratantrashastra was important although it's a treatise, not a sutra. From very early on, the main slogan of Zen was "See mind, become Buddha" which meant that by directly meditating on the mind, one sees the Buddha nature of the mind and becomes enlightened.

I thought the Lankavatara was the same as the Platform Sutra. They are different is that correct? (Thanks for the answer it's great)

@Crab The Lankavatara Sutra is a Sutra which describes the Buddha going into Sri Lanka and teaching the King of the Rakshasas about the nature of the mind and reality. The Platform Sutra describes Huineng overhearing the Diamond Sutra and spontaneously becoming enlightened, entering a monastery, and quickly becoming a great teacher.

The Gateless Gate. The Heart Sutra. The Diamond Sutra. The Shōbōgenzō. These are the first ones that come to my mind as a Zen Buddhist.
Here is more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_Sutras

Maybe the lotus sutra.

I am from a Chinese Buddhist organization with Chan lineage but is non denominational. They use the entire Chinese Mahayana canon as their basis, but in practice only popular passages like the Heart Sutra, Great Compassion Mantra, Amitabha Sutra, Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra are chanted on a regular basis by lay devotees like myself.
To understand the purpose and vision of the Chan/Zen school you must go back to it's Mahayana origins, which arose out of historical Buddhism due to it getting out of touch with the masses, Buddhism itself was on the verge of dying out. As a result immense amount of relatively new sutras and scriptures were created to explain the vision of Buddhism and application of the dharma to the world, using fantastical stories telling with hidden meanings. However the teachings themselves eventually become a baggage. Instead of practicing the Dharma, monks can end up spending time trying to absorb all the content. Many end up debating philosophy instead of practicing. Many temples become purely ceremonial instead of being a place of practice.
Further more some schools end up having very elaborate rituals requiring great expenses making it difficult for the poor to access Buddhism. Confused, undisciplined monks behaved badly, the public lost faith.
So Chan/Zen was a 'back to basics' poor man Buddhism, with focus on mindful concentration attaining the Jhana (aka Chan/Zen) and applying it to all situation. They farm, but farm mindfully. Cleaning, eating, walking and of course sitting meditation are expected to be done mindfully. Study of sutras were de-emphasized for practice instead.
I highly recommend watching the movie Zen (2009) about Zen Master Dogen and the vision behind his school. When he returned to Japan from China he found the practice have degenerated and monks behaving badly and set out to revitalize Buddhism. His rivals were outraged, did he bring back new sutras? What is this true Buddhism he spoke of? But the simple fact was that without practice you could never truly reach the truths of Buddhism. And even enlightenment was not the end of practice.
As the Buddha himself said, once you crossed the shore of suffering, you don't need to keep carrying the raft/teachings with you, because you would already know what to do.
Hence, all the knowledge of the sutras, while important in the cultivation of wisdom, are no substitute for practice. Buddhism is not truly Buddhism without the Noble Eightfold Path.
You can see similar historical trends in the forest tradition of Thailand relative to city temples.


text:
What is the relationship between Bon and Tibetan Buddhism?
What is the relationship between Bon and Tibetan Buddhism? My understanding is that Bon is a religion that pre-dates Tibetan Buddhism but is it still an active influence within Tibetan Buddhism? Is still a religion in its own right or is it always found in connection with Buddhism? If it does still influence Tibetan Buddhism how does that influence manifest itself?

Part of the trouble is that the term Bon has been used historically to refer to several rather different groups and traditions. It is used to refer to the pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet which is depicted in the Tibetan histories as being barbaric and based on using evil spirits to defeat their enemies. Traditionally, Padmasabhava, one of the main figures credited with establishing Buddhism in Tibet, is regarded as having subdued these spirits, converting them to Buddhism and getting them to act as protectors instead of violent beings.
Obviously these texts were written by Buddhist scholars and show the pre-Buddhist religion in a quite negative light, so we probably can't rely on them too much.
Bon is also used to refer to another separate religion in Tibet that exists even today that has very strong similarities to Tibetan Buddhism, particularly the old Nyingma school, in that it also has treasure texts which claim to have been secretly written many years ago and then discovered, and also shares the Nyingma teachings on dzogchen, a type of meditation based on direct observation of the mind.
These are very different from one another, and the influence goes both ways. Old Bon had a strong influence on developing Tibetan Buddhism with many of its figures being appropriated as protectors and many religious folk customs simply being mixed in with Buddhism, and the New Bon essentially drawing its doctrines from Tibetan Buddhism and giving it a new name.

Also, from the little I have read, there is no proof (yet) that Bon is any older than Tibetan Buddhism. HH the Dalai Lama, I believe, has formally recognized Bon as one of the Schools of Tibetan Buddhism. (So now there are Nyingma, Sakya, Gelukpa, Kagyu, Jonang, and, last but not least, Bon.)


text:
Buddhism and political correctness
I stumbled upon a question about the danger in lying and Andrei's answer caught my attention. He claims that '...key qualities of good character are: Honesty, Integrity, Responsibility'. Then it made me wonder - is being politically correct an obstacle on the way to enlightenment?
By the term political correctness I understand 'enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes")'.

It seems that:
Lots of public figures no longer say what they really think but they mince their words so as not to offend any of the groups.
Media doesn't report certain facts/events/results of studies in fear of offending groups which won't feel comfortable with certain facts/events/results.
Most of the time it is not based on honesty.
Clearly this leads to violated integrity.
In everyday life we also seem to be forced into political correctness.
Challenging someone's views can be perceived as an attack and more and more jokes are perceived as offending (although it used to be a great virtue to be able to laugh at oneself).

I would be mostly interested in what contemporary Buddhist teachers and masters think about this topic.
Please refrain from sharing personal opinion if it's not based on specific teachings. I am looking for advice from Buddhist masters and texts mostly.

"Please refrain from sharing personal opinions, I am looking for advice from Buddhist masters and texts only." This does go against the Buddha's teachings. Buddha said "Be islands unto yourselves". He said to look with your own personal experience and not rely on masters or text only.

Whenever the question is too 'opinion-based' it usually gets closed. If your opinion is based on the Buddhist teachings, please share those teaching.

That I can agree with. "Take refuge in yourselves, not in anything else. In you are Buddha, Dharma,and Sangha. Don't
look for things that are far away. Everything is in your own heart. Bean island unto yourself."

"Political correctness" is what US conservatives use to disparaging discuss how people on the left try to speak carefully and not cause offense to women, disabled, blacks, and other minorities. The subtext is that conservatives find the idea that anyone deserves protection, in law or chit chat, to be repugnant. I find the whole ideology behind "political correctness" to be devoid of compassion-- indeed its an ideology of contempt for compassion (in the sense of trying to feel the pain of the less fortunate).

@MatthewMartin very well-said and good point on compassion. The problem is that many people (including Buddhists) try to be 'nice to others' and they implement PC in their own behaviour. I'm just trying to find any teachings from Buddhist masters that would openly address the issue of PC as it is nowadays virtually all-pervading...

Buddhism is a syncretic tradition-- people join and on day one have certain non-negotiables, e.g. "my religion needs to be compatible with my political sensibilities" So what comes out of that will be a mix of ideas unrelated to Buddhism and recognizable Buddhism. It's not a bad process, but one should be aware of it. I know the ancient  Buddha wasn't a Democrat, but I'm not going to change my views on women's issues just because the Buddha said some not-very progressive things about women. I image this is true for social conservatives as well.

@MatthewMartin I've created a chatroom for all the discussions about PC, feel free to pop in: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16816/discussion-about-political-correctness

Last rebirth I voted this down, I must have misunderstood something because I actually like this question and would upvote it if I could.

This sounds like an issue best analyzed according to the Buddha's teachings on right speech. The Buddha famously expounded how he personally determined how to decide on what to say in the Abhaya Sutta, saying:

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html
In essence, one should consider four factors of truth, benefit, agreeability, and timeliness. The relevant point here is that even if one might say something that is true, if there is no real benefit to be gained from it, then you shouldn't say it. Certainly not all cases of political correctness fall into this, but it isn't dishonest to hold back from saying something if it will lead to no good.

But how to know whether it brings benefit? It seems that by hiding difficult truths we may have immediate results in ppl not being offended, but in the long term we spread views that lack integrity. Also, maybe sometimes it is good that people face the truth?

@Rabbit: Not speaking is not the same as spreading false views. If revealing a certain truth causes harm, you can simply stay silent or talk about a different topic.

@SankhaKulathantille do you suggest that media should not report certain facts simply because some group finds it offending? I will refrain from giving concrete examples, Internet is full of those, please browse them yourself.

Read #3 in this answer. The media should report if it is beneficial to people and timely, even if some group might find it offensive.

@SankhaKulathantille thank you for this remark. It is the first time when someone clearly showed me that political correctness might indeed be against the right speech. It is really reassuring, thank you.

But not reporting anything isn't against the right speech. It is simply "no speech". Reporting something beneficial is a good thing to do. Not doing something good is not necessarily doing something bad.

@SankhaKulathantille I've created a chatroom for all the discussions about PC, feel free to pop in: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16816/discussion-about-political-correctness

@Bakmoon. I found this picture on google regarding "Right Speech". It says "accepted, not accepted". Is it the same as "endearing" or "agreeable"? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TMhpqMz4Yt0/UQC_I0kIW7I/AAAAAAAADDc/bCd0ZXVzVjo/s1600/Right+speech+in+action.001.jpg

Political correctness is obviously false speech. False speech is defined as follows:

If he doesn't know, he says, 'I know.' If he does know, he says, 'I
don't know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I have seen.' If he has
seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' Thus he consciously tells lies for
his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of a certain
reward.
AN 10.176

False speech leads to rebirth in hell or rebirth in the animal kingdom.

I think the OP wasn't asking about lying -- IMO they were asking about "mincing" speech, or refraining from disagreeable speech.

@Lowbrow. Political analysis are better suited for the chatrooms; this conversation has been moved to chat.

@Lanka How long do chats stay up?

@Lowbrow Well for example the one Lanka created still exists if you follow the link he posted, but it's "deleted" after a few days of inactivity which means that only a mod or "room owner" can reopen it, and it's not visible by default on the list of current chat rooms though you can show frozen/deleted rooms.

The main chat room is always open and never deleted (and people are welcome to use it for chat about almost any topic, including the weather and how you've been doing today, especially if you don't post stuff that people flag for moderator attention), but hardly anybody ever uses the chat room on this site (unlike the rooms of other SE sites),

@Lowbrow. I believe my colleague ChrisW gave a sufficent answer.

Recent Authoritative Answer - this is from the book At The Feet of The Master which was written by Alcyone (Krishnamurti when he was a boy, thus about 100 years ago), available in its entirety online: "Everything that you say should be true, kind and helpful, and be needed now." I think this summarizes the points others have made, is a direct quote, and is very easy to recall. Putting it to use is another matter : )

This is just a summary of the teaching on the right speech. What I'm looking for is an advice on how to put it in use in a very specific setting - political correctness.

If what you wish to say is true and helpful, think of how others will take it.

The problem is that even scientific truths are offending to some. By claiming that evolution is a correct scientific theory you already offend some group of people. So shall we hide/bend such truths not to offend others?

Consider whether helpfulness outweighs offensiveness in the particular case. Even difficult truths can be conveyed kindly, if necessary.

So shall media report scientific truths in a watered-down way to make sure no one is offended? Thank you for your personal advice, I really appreciate it, but I am mostly interested whether some Buddhist teachers approached the problem of PC directly.

When Jesus was asked "What is truth?" He said nothing. I believe that a master would say nothing rather than a partial truth. "A truth that's told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent" (Blake) There are times when nothing good can be said.

@Rabbit Well, remember though that teaching scientific truth is obviously beneficial. I can't personally see how a politician coming out and airing their private prejudices against a minority group can be beneficial.

@Bakmoon it's not about private opinions, it's rather about some dry, objective facts, statistics or results of studies that some minorities might not like to see on the TV or a newspaper. I am aware that the topic is controversial, that is why I'm seeking advice amongst Buddhist teachers and try to see whether anyone in this community heard of anything relevant.

@Bakmoon I've created a chatroom for all the discussions about PC, feel free to pop in: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16816/discussion-about-political-correctness

@Rabbit There's nothing wrong with facts. But one must also make sure one is not misusing them to create a false impression, which is something that is extremely common. Pundits will point out a minority and say "Look, this groups is more likely than the general population to be x,y, and z" without inquiring as to why, and encouraging listeners to come to the conclusion that such a group is naturally inferior. As long as you aren't doing that and you are doing so to serve some clear benefit there is no problem.

I don't see how this is a proper answer, as Krishnamurti was not a Buddhist. OP was asking for advice from Buddhist masters and texts, and this site is specifically for Buddhist Q&A. Further, it doesn't really address the issue of political correctness. This might be appropriate as a comment on Bakmoon's answer.

I apologize if my answer was not proper, I didn't think about whether Krishnamurti was Buddhist. I thought I was directly meeting the point of the question, but the question was not to get the answer but to know what Buddhist Masters have SAID on this topic, which is different. (What if no Masters have said anything about PC? What should we do?) Shall I remove my answer?

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


text:
Taming the mind and Homelessness
In the Buddha's teachings we learn how to see things as a product of our own mind, for example, if you "fall in love" everything happens in your own mind, the other person is nothing but an external stimulus, so in theory if we tam our mind we can live in this world without suffering wordly consequences of attachments and desires.
Even with this deep knowledge, in Buddhism we are encouraged to abandon desires, wealth and go to homeless life (for monks!). So the question is: Is it impossible to tame the mind completely? Is that an utopia? Because if one could tame his mind completely, there would be no need to abandon things as the way he relates to them would be completely free and deattached.
If material things have the potential to create problems, does it mean a full tamed mind is impossible?

There are various levels of Buddhist teachings and they are sometimes contradictory. Abandoning desires is central in so-called Hinayana level, whereas on Mahayana level it is not required. See this question

good point, but my main doubt here is: If one can truly tame his mind, why the need to abandon things?

Because we are beginners. It is for our own safety that we first train in controlled conditions before we are thrown into a real mayhem. Before we learn to ride the tiger it is safer to first avoid the tiger :)

In Zen we are not taught to abandon things. Instead we are taught to let go of our attachment to things. The key here is that it is not the things themselves that make us suffer, but it is our attachment to these things that make us suffer. Eliminating the things themselves is different than learning to liberate yourself from your own attachment to these things.
Three men sit in a lions den waiting to be eaten by a hungry lion. The first man hides in the corner trembling in fear of the lion. The second man stands strong ready to face the lion and kill it. The third man is liberated from attachments and is not in fear of the lion, nor does he want to kill the lion. In the present moment the third man is filled with joy and happiness for he is alive.
Abandoning things, is like the man trying to get rid of the lion. At first it may seem like the best choice, but there is a middle way between the first two men.

Good point for Zen, I would like to hear other schools as well, but I really like your answer

The lay life is not conducive to the practice. Imagine you are studying for an exam and you have 2 places to go to. 1. A quiet library. 2. A stripper club with loud music. In which environment will you be able to study more effectively? One can still study in the stripper club, but it's going to be much difficult and not as effective compared to studying in the library.
If what you are really asking is why someone who becomes an Arahath in lay life gets ordained within seven days, it is because the holy life is what is most natural for a being without defilements. There's nothing in his mind that keeps him tied to the lay life. It's like if you hold down an air bubble underwater using a cup and then when you turn it over, the air bubble will go up and enter the atmosphere. There's nothing that holds it down underwater.

Can you tame the mind? Yes. Completely? Probably.
All you need to do is stay away from the 'hindrances' (stuff that makes it hard to focus), notice something, notice you noticing the thing, stay with the feeling of you noticing the thing (not the thing tself) and when distractions come up, make them disappear and go back to the thing.

Is it impossible to tame the mind completely?
Yes. Nibbana is when the mind is completely tamed. Then,

all unwholesome roots, defilements are uprooted,
all fetters are broken
you do not provide nutrients for future existence
etc.

Is that an utopia? Because if one could tame his mind completely, there would be no need to abandon things as the way he relates to them would be completely free and detached.
The mind gets generates 3 unwholesome roots, fetters, etc. based on materiality. E.g. you have a beautiful new car. You get attached to this. This creates negativity which means getting totally tamed is moving a bit further away.
If material things have the potential to create problems, does it mean a full tamed mind is impossible?
As long as you have attachment to materiality a fully tamed mind is not possible. Once you mentally get detached is only taming your mind is possible. Being meing attached to something translates to physically possessing what your are attached to. Physically letting go also helps being some what, but not totally, mentally detached. Practicing meditation and understanding now craving dependently arises from feelings and how feeling arises due to contact and how Ignorance of the 4 Noble Truths. This is what tames your mind fully.

I believe the placement of the 3 scopes is not arbitrary. Graded steps to enlightenment. Wisdom and proper practice are key to personal growth so that one may then attend to the other wing - compassion for others.
I believe it is our nature to assist one another. The most efficient way to do that is to cut our own needs and desires completely (to the bare bones at least).  In my former version of this life I was devastated to lose my family, my career, and my health all at once. As a Buddhist it was an actual advantage. Attachments were gone. But that's not how everyone could or should do it and it's not what the Buddha was implying. It is merely the absolute we could achieve. And as the acorn should be viewed as the oak ... we should be viewed as our most efficient selves.

Complete taming of mind is possible. Buddhism teaches to detach one's mind from earthly desires so as to become free. In most literature and teachings, it shows that there were many instances where people living ordinary lives with families tamed their minds completely and opened doors to nibbhana.
This is called 'Sovahan'. It is one of the early stages of the path to nirvana (also, nibbhana). It is not easy for someone living a 'gihi' (an ordinary civil life;not a monk) to completely detach themselves from the world because of responsibilities they hold in regards to their families and the society. If your kid falls ill, a completely detached person would not worry or panic. I don't see how that would work in the context of a social being. Either it becomes hard to tame the mind in such a case or the person will leave behind that ordinary life to live an ordained life (doesn't necessarily have to be a monk).
Most people who were able to tame their minds even when living a normal life were special people during Lord Buddha's time who understood the teachings really easily once taught.
In the contemporary world, it would be hard for a person to understand and detach themselves completely due to all the stimuli from the surrounding environment. Too many distractions. This is why monks live away from their families after renouncing all their belongings.
It is a first step that forces them to live a detached life because now they do not have to care for any loved ones or worry about possessions. Now they are free to focus on meditation and taming their mind.
It is simply a fast track to detachment by reconditioning the environment to remove distractions.

A full tamed mind would mean a full tamed body, as they are both one and a part of each other.
Impossible? Absolutely not. There is always the possibility an individual has achieved such an incredible feat at some point in time or space. Who knows, there could be many. Impossible is an absolute word, once you believe in impossibility then you limit yourself from potential of the reality.
We have breached many things widely considered impossible. If something is within reason, then it is worth striving for.
On another note, mastering is another word for 'taming'; which expressly implies learning and/or discipline is the path to taming the mind.
If you are interested in cultivating yourself in that manner, then a good start is understanding desires, why you get them and act upon them when the little voice reminds you shouldn't.
Like getting fast food from a monopolised company when there is a small business that does food way better.
Cultivate in harmony