text:
How do Buddhists reconcile "Anatta" with Buddha supporting the existence of the Self in the Mahayana Mahaparininirvana Sutra?
In the third chapter of the Mahayana Mahaparininirvana Sutra, Buddha calls the Self real and permanent:

Then the Buddha said to all the bhiksus: "Do not say this. I now leave all the unsurpassed Dharma in the hands of Mahakasyapa. This Kasyapa will henceforth be the one upon whom you may rely. This is as in the case where the Tathagata becomes the one to whom all beings can turn. The same is the case with Mahakasyapa. He will now become your refuge. This is as in the case of a king who has many territories and who goes on a tour of inspection, leaving all affairs of state in the hands of his minister. The same with the Tathagata. All right teachings are left in the hands of Mahakasyapa. Know that all that you have learned up to now about the non-eternal and suffering is not true. In spring, for example, people go bathing in a big pond. They are enjoying themselves, sailing in a boat, when they drop a gem of beryl into the depths of the water, after which it can no longer be seen. Then they all get into the water and search for this gem. They competitively scoop up all such rubbish as tiles, stones, bits of wood, and gravel, and say that they have the beryl. They are glad and take the things out, and see that what they hold in their hands is not true. The gem is still in the water. By the power of the gem itself, the water becomes clear and transparent. As a result, the people see that the gemis still in the water, as clearly as when they look up and see the form of the moon in the sky. At that time, there is a wise man there who, working out a power, slowly gets into the water and gains the gem. O you Bhiksus! Do not abide in the thought of the non-Eternal, Suffering, non-Self, and the not-Pure and be in the situation of those people who take stones, bits of wood, and gravel to be the true gem. You must study well the Way, how to act, wherever you go, and “meditate on the Self, the Eternal, Bliss, and thePure”. Know that the outer forms of the four items which you have learnt up to now are inversions and that anyone who desires to practise the Way should act like the wise man who deftly gets hold of thegem. This refers to the so-called thought of Self, and that of the Eternal, Bliss, and Pure."

Now, as far, as I know, Buddhists believe in the concept of "Anatta" i.e. No-Self which seems to contradict the above passage. So how Buddhists reconcile the third chapter of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra with the concept of "Anatta"?

How is this a duplicate? That question was about what Buddha said. This one is how Buddhists intepret it. @ChrisW

You're saying that "What the Buddha said" and "How Buddhists interpret it" aren't the same question? I thought that the answer[s] to the other question were also an answer to this one (i.e. that this question is already answered by the answers to the other question).

@ChrisW I don't see any satisfying answers there.

I hope you find a better answer here, then. One of the answers there was edited, I don't know why, I thought the previous version was better -- see the older version of the answer here.

Where is the link to the quotation?

@DheerajVerma I added a hyperlink

I am not an expert on Mahayana Buddhism, but I will try to answer this question.
I found another translation here.
For the same section quoted by OP, this other translation states:

Bhikṣus, thus you should not cultivate your ideas of impermanence,
  suffering, nonself, impurity, and so forth as if they were the true
  meaning [of the human condition]. Just like those people who took
  rocks, vegetation, or gravel to be the jeweled necklace they were
  looking for, you must carefully learn about expedient means so that
  wherever you are, you can continually cultivate your perception of
  self as well as your perceptions of permanence, bliss, and purity.

Later on, the text says:

And out of my desire to subdue the non-Buddhist paths I therefore
  declared: “There is no self,there is no person or [individual] living
  being, life span, personality, observer, actor, or experiencer.”
  Monks, the heterodox paths affirm a “self” in the same manner as [some
  infer literacy in] the shapes of letters incised into wood
  accidentally by insects. This is why the Tathāgata proclaims “nonself”
  as part of his buddha-dharma. It is because I need to straighten out
  [the thinking] of living beings—because I am aware of their
  situation—that I expound the absence of self. ....
  But what I am speaking of is not what ordinary people imagine the self
  to be. Ordinary people or ignorant people suppose the self to be the
  size of a thumb, or perhaps a mustard seed, or a speck of dust. What
  the Tathāgata explains the self to be is nothing like that. Therefore
  when I preach “dharmas are without self,” in truth they are not
  without self. So what is this self [of which I now speak]? If a dharma
  is true, real, permanent, autonomous, a basis, and its nature is
  immutable, then that is what I call self.

The term "dharma" above means "thing". So "self" is a thing which is true, real, permanent, autonomous, a basis and is immutable.
Then it continues:

[Kāśyapa continued:] “World-Honored One, is there a self or not in any
  of the twenty-five forms of existence?”
The Buddha said: Good man, “self” is precisely what tathāgatagarbha
  means. All living beings have buddha-nature, and this is what is meant
  by this notion of self. However, the significance of “self” understood
  in this way has been continuously covered over by an uncountable
  number of the defilements since the beginning [of any given
  individual’s existence], and that is why living beings have been
  unable to perceive it.

So, the "self" in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra refers to the tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature.
It must be noted that tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature is not the same as the concept of Atman in Hinduism, as can be seen by the following excerpt from the same text Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

Good man, if people have never heard of the profound, hidden tathā-
  gata treasury, how could they be aware of the existence of
  buddha-nature? What is it that I am calling “a hidden treasury”? I am
  talking about the well-balanced Mahāyāna scriptures themselves. Good
  man, there are other paths: some expound a self that is permanent,
  some expound a self that is cut off permanently [at death]. The
  Tathāgata is not like them. In affirming both self and nonself, I call
  it “the middle path.” One way of explaining this is that the Buddha
  expounds a middle path in which all living beings possess
  buddha-nature, but because it is obscured by the defilements they do
  not understand it and do not see it. Therefore you must diligently
  cultivate whatever expedient means you can in order to destroy those
  defilements.

According to this article:

Tathagatagarbha, or Tathagata-garbha, means "womb" (garbha) of Buddha
  (Tathagata). This refers to a Mahayana Buddhist doctrine that Buddha
  Nature is within all beings. Because this is so, all beings may
  realize enlightenment. Tathagatagarbha often is described as a seed,
  embryo or potentiality within each individual to be developed.

And it discusses further:

In the religions of the Buddha's day that were the forerunners of
  today's Hinduism, one of the central beliefs as (and is) the doctrine
  of atman. Atman means "breath" or "spirit," and it refers to a soul or
  individual essence of self. Another is the teaching of Brahman, which
  is understood as something like the absolute reality or the ground of
  being. In the several traditions of Hinduism, the precise relationship
  of atman to Brahman varies, but they could be understood as the small,
  individual self and the big, universal self.
However, the Buddha specifically rejected this teaching. The doctrine
  of anatman, which he articulated many times, is a direct refutation of
  atman.
Through the centuries many have accused the Tathagatagarbha doctrine
  of being an attempt to sneak an atman back into Buddhism by another
  name.
In this case, the potentiality or Buddha-seed within each being is
  compared to atman, and Buddha Nature -- which is sometimes identified
  with the dharmakaya -- is compared to Brahman.
You can find many Buddhist teachers speaking of small mind and big
  mind, or small self and big self. What they mean may not be exactly
  like the atman and Brahman of Vedanta, but it's common for people to
  understand them that way. Understanding Tathagatagarbha this way,
  however, would violate basic Buddhist teaching.

Another article here tries to point the origins of tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature to the Luminous Mind in the Pali Canon (which according to Theravada Buddhism, is not permanent or eternal, but is dependently arising - see this answer):

The term "'tathagatagarbha'" is generally taken as to mean that the
  "garbha" (womb or potential) of a 'Tathagata' exists in all sentient beings without
  exception, and though temporarily contaminated by adventitious
  defilement ('agantukaklesa'), it is the cause which eventually leads
  sentient beings to enlightenment. The notion of the 'tathagatagarbha'
  can be traced to a luminous¡A inherently pure mind (pabhassar citta)
  found in the 'Anguttara-nikaya' (1:5):
Oh! 'Bhiksus'. The mind is pure! It is defiled by the adventitious
  defilement. Oh! 'Bhiksus'. The mind is pure! it obtains liberation
  through the adventitious defilement.
When the original pure mind came to be regarded as something capable
  of growing into Buddhahood, there was the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine.
  Although the concept of an intrinsically pure mind exists in the
  Nikaya Buddhism, many Buddhologists, such as Wayman (1), Paul (2),
  Yin-shun (3) think that the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was originated
  from the 'Mahasamgika', but was rejected by the 'Theravada'. This
  theory is also held by Mizuno who points out that the pure mind
  ('pabhassarcitta') articulated in the Nikaya Buddhism is not totally
  identical with the original pure mind ('prakrtivisuddhi-citta')
  articulated in the 'Tathagatagarbha' doctrine, for Mizuno asserts that
  the former is static whereas the latter is dynamic in that it is
  capable of eradicating defilement.(4) At any rate, the relationship
  between pure mind and the adventitious defilement appears to have been
  wholly adopted by the 'Mahasamghika' and later by the 'Mahayana'.

It also comments in its conclusion:

In conclusion, when we try to interpret the thought of the
  'tathagatagarbha', we should keep several points in mind:
1) The 'tathagatagarbha' symbolizes the potential for enlightenment (a
  principle) rather than a material "essence" of ultimate truth,
2) the 'tathagatagarbha' is based on the framework of the 'Mahayana'
  doctrine of 'sunyata-pratitya-samutpada'.
3) The development of the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine signifies the
  ability of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs of the
  masses aiming at a given time.
That is to say the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was formed as an positive
  soterio-logical approach to counteract the "'sunyam sarvam'" (all is
  empty) view. The 'tathagatagarbha' which strongly articulates a
  devotional and experiential approach to salvation provides much to the
  hope and aspiration of the people at large. It is this positive aspect
  that was taken up and strongly emphasized in Chinese Buddhism.
4) The 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine is employed as a skill-in-means
  ('upaya'). This does not necessarily mean that the theory of the
  'tathagatagarbha' is neyartha, a teaching requiring further
  qualifications -- rather, it is a skill-in-means in that it is taught
  to suit the needs of a certain kind of people and circumstances. This
  is why it is said in the 'sutra' that in order to teach the emptiness
  of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach sometimes by the doctrine of the
  'tathagatagarbha', and sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus it is
  better to take the 'tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature' as representing
  "profound existence" derived from "true emptiness" rather than as a
  monistic self.

The following is the answer I believe that my tradition gives. In other words, this answer is from the perspective of the Gelug tradition of Prasangika-Madhyamaka as founded by Je Tsongkhapa as I understand it. I may be wrong :)
The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is a Tathāgatagarbha Sutra and thus belongs to the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma. Je Tsongkhapa lays out in the lam rim how the Sutras from the three turnings should be interpreted. The first turning Sutras are said to be provisional in meaning. The second turning Sutras are said to be definitive in meaning. The third turning Sutras are said to have been given to allay the fears of those who have heard the second turning Sutras and adopted a view of nihilism: that the Prajnaparamita Sutras essentially mean that nothing exists and that karma does not exist, etc, etc.
In other words, the Buddha gave the teachings of the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma as a skillful means to stop some individuals who had heard the Second Turning teachings and understanding them incorrectly were going down the road to nihilism and thus the avici hell. Thus the Third Turning teachings have an essentialist sheen in order to arrest the nihilist tendency in these individuals.
That is how I have understood it at least. If you wish me to or you think it would be helpful I can provide quotes from the relevant works of Chandrakirti, Je Tsongkhapa and other prominent teachers from the Gelug branch of Prasangika-Madhyamaka. For now, here is the wikipedia page ;)

In the Tibetan tradition, the Gelug school considers the second turning definitive, as do some scholars in other schools.

I hope and believe this answer might be useful for sentient beings.

Namo Buddhaya. I will give a logical answer. Logically there is no self(no self which is permanent, unchanging and blissful). I am different from what I was 10 years ago and I will be different from what I am today. However my past is connected with the present and the present is connected with the future through Karma. It is like, I started off as milk then I became curd then I became Ghee and so on... I am different in many ways and similar in many ways with the past. But there is no permanent identity which can be called as ME. And there is no unchanging identify which can be called as ME. The sense of Self which gets generated is due to craving. Craving for the five aggregates.If you stop clinging to the five aggregates the sense of self will disappear and also will the suffering. The self which you think exists is nothing more than illusion. The reality is that there is nothing worth clinging to in terms of form, feelings ,perceptions, consciousness and volitional formations because they are not permanent, unchanging and blissful.
This fact remains undisputed whether Buddha arises or not. Whether you are a Buddhist or not. Anatta remains true. In my opinion we need to support the long story from  Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra with more examples. Buddha would have explained that in many other ways as he was Great Teacher.

From the Tibetan Gelug viewpoint, the perfection of self posited in the Nirvana Sutra is not what you would translate as 'atman'. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
The self that is asserted in the Nirvana Sutra has nothing to do with the atman that we negate.
As it says in Gyaltsab Je's commentary to Maitreya/Asanga's Sublime Continuum:

The perfection of the highest self refers to the final nature, the
  emptiness of the self, that is, the emptiness of true existence of the
  self.

And:

The highest self or holy self refers to selflessness or no-self, as
  translated here, which is the result of the development of the
  perfection of wisdom

In addition, the perfection of permanence in this context does not refer to the entity of permanence, but to the deeds of a buddha being uninterrupted.

I think this answer is in accord with my answer in that this sutra when interpreted with the viewpoint of emptiness leads to no contradiction.

I think so too. However, you didn't specify what we understand this self to be. Here, what I mean is not so much "Buddha taught a self to people afraid of no-self" but rather "This self Buddha speaks of is not the self that you think of and that Buddha indeed negated. In fact it's called self but it has nothing to do with self."


text:
What are the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhism?
Tibetan Buddhists often talk about the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma...
What are the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhism?
Where did they take place according to Tibetan Buddhists?
How do Tibetan Buddhists interpret these Three Turnings?
Is there disagreement within Tibetan Buddhists schools about which teachings are definitive and which are provisional?
Do Tibetan Buddhists think these Three Turnings are contradictory?

According to Prasangika, or Svatantrika?

I attempted in my answer below to represent the parts where the different Tibetan subschools agree and where they disagree. Please let me know if I made any errors!

FWIW, I just learned that posting a question+answer on this site is frowned upon. This was motivated by a specific request, but will take care when doing this again.

@TenzinDorje if i wanted to contact you over email would I send an email to Kopan Monastery or Nalanda?

That would be Nalanda. But you can simply write at tenzin.dorje.pt@gmail.com

What are the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhism?
Where did they take place according to Tibetan Buddhists?
The Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhists are broadly speaking three different categories of teachings the historical Buddha gave as recorded in various Sutras.
The First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is said to have been given at Deer Park in northern India. Here is an article cited by the FPMT which describes what Tibetan Buddhists believe constitute this first turning:

The first turning includes those teachings given by the Buddha in the
  earliest historical period of Buddhism in general, and Buddha
  Shakyamuni’s teaching career in particular.  Many of these teachings
  are fundamental to all schools of Buddhism such as the four noble
  truths, the eightfold path, selflessness (anatman), dependent-arising,
  impermanence, the five aggregates, etc. Perhaps the most famous of the
  many discourses (Pali: sutta, Sanskrit: sutra) of the Buddha from the
  first turning is the one that records the Buddha’s very first teaching
  at Deer Park to the first five disciples entitled The Turning of the
  Wheel of the Dhamma Sutta. In actuality, virtually all of the contents
  of the Pali version of the Buddhist canon, that version utilized by
  Theravada Buddhists of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia today, are
  considered by Tibetans to be teachings from the first turning of the
  wheel.

The Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is said to have been given at Vulture Peak Mountain in Rajagriha, India. The Sutras which record this turning are broadly given the title of Perfection of Wisdom Sutras or prajnaparamita the most famous of which are likely the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter Sutra.
The Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is said to have been given in numerous locations and generally comprise those Sutras making up what is called the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine.
How do Tibetan Buddhists interpret these Three Turnings?
Is there disagreement within Tibetan Buddhists schools about which teachings are definitive and which are provisional?
Among the various subschools of Tibetan Buddhism there is broad agreement about these Three Turnings. In other words, the subschools generally agree that these are valid and authentic teachings of the Buddha. However, there are some disagreements.
I'm not aware of any disagreements about the First Turning which are widely considered provisional in meaning, but there is some contention about the status of the Second and Third and which Sutras are said to be definitive in meaning and which are provisional.
The Gelug school as founded by Je Tsongkhapa and which forms the root lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama believe the Second Turning to be definitive in meaning while the Third is said to be provisional or at least that it needs to be interpreted with the wisdom realizing emptiness. According to the Gelug viewpoint the Third Turning was motivated to dispel the fear that some generated upon hearing the teachings of the Second Turning. That is, some listeners had an incorrect understanding of the Second Turning and developed a nihilistic view and so out of compassion the Buddha gave the Third Turning with a sheen of essentialism to dispel this nihilism which leads to the avici hell.
Tsongkhapa gave his viewpoint in his Essence of True Eloquence.
Here is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama has to say about this:

"At a time when Tsongkhapa's work ‘Essence of Good Explanation’ on the
  provisional and definitive meaning of the Sutras was translated into
  Hindi at Varanasi, the pandits Tripathi and Upadhyaya were involved. I
  asked Tripathi to consider Je Rinpoche's work in the context of the
  great Indian classics and wondered whether he might be classed among
  the scholars of Nalanda. Tripathi responded that he would not only
  hold his own among them, but would be classed among the most
  excellent."

It is important to understand that the Second and Third Turning teachings predate Tibetan Buddhism. These teachings were recorded and came from India before Buddhism was ever introduced to the land of snow. However, the Second and Third Turnings were not recorded in the Pali Canon and thus properly belong to the Mahayana.
Do Tibetan Buddhists think these Three Turnings are contradictory?
No.
There is very wide agreement that these teachings - when interpreted correctly and with a proper view of which are provisional and which are definitive - do not contradict each other.

So, do you think Buddha was talking about eternal subjective self?

Hi Rohith, I'm not sure what is meant by "eternal subjective self"? To first reading, I'd say that "eternal" and "subjective" seem in some conflict to each other.

My own viewpoint is that Prasangika-Madhyamaka is the most subtle and correct view of the wisdom realizing emptiness as explained by Buddha -> Nagarjuna -> Aryadeva -> Buddhapalita -> ChandraKirti - Je Tsongkhapa however, it is very difficult even to get an inferential understanding of emptiness.
That is, I think all phenomena lack inherent existence including nirvana, samsara, and emptiness itself. There is no existent whatsoever that has inherent existence even the slightest bit. That is every existent is completely and thoroughly dependent. And truly realizing this can give liberation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Reference wanted for "To see your past karma, look at your present body (and environment)...."
This is a reference request, not a doctrine question. I recall seeing a quote from a Buddhist text or teacher roughly to this effect...

To see your past karma, look at your present body (and
environment).
To see your future lives, look at your present mind.

The closest I can find now from a teacher or text is a quote from Philip Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen...

Thus our present life and circumstances are the products of our past
  thoughts and actions, and in the same way our deeds in this life will
  fashion our future mode of existence.” (p. 408)

... which is close -- "life and circumstances" vs "body and environment" and "deeds" vs "mind"-- but not quite. If anybody can supply a pointer to the body/environment/mind version, I'd be grateful.

Found it... mostly --
Tweet by H.H. The Dalai Lama, May 6, 2010...

If you wonder what you were doing in the past, look at your body; to know what will happen to you in the future, look at your mind.

3149 retweets -- so that's probably where I saw it. As for adding environment to body, that's probably my interpolation, since the material circumstances of one's present life are clearly karmic, according to Buddhadharma.
It's probably impossible to trace this to a single origin, however, as it seems to be all over the place in various versions, including from sources other than Buddhists.

If you want to know your past life, look into your present condition;
  if you want to know your future life, look at your present
  actions.-Guru Rinpoche 747 AD

Thanks. But still not past -> body/environment and mind -> future. Maybe I am misremembering, but I'm looking for those specific terms.

I am pretty sure that Dalai Lama is misquoting Padmasambadha the quotes look very alike!If the quote is regarding Karma,its probably this one.

“If you want to understand the causes that existed in the past, look at the results as they are manifested in the present. And if you want to understand what results will be manifested in the future, look at the causes that exist in the present” (“The Opening of the Eyes,” The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, vol. 1, p. 279).

Nice! Looks like Nichiren is right in synch with the Guru Rinpoche quote below.

all_licenses: 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/


text:
Is owning a restaurant considered wrong livelihood?
The Vaṇijjāsutta:

Pañcimā, bhikkhave, vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā. Katamā pañca? Satthavaṇijjā, sattavaṇijjā, maṃsavaṇijjā, majjavaṇijjā, visavaṇijjā — imā kho, bhikkhave, pañca vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā”ti.
Sattamaṃ

There are many translations regarding above quoted text, not sure which one needs to be included. But from what I understand, if one raises a pig and kill it in order to sell its meat, this is considered wrong livelihood.
But what if the restaurant owner simply buys meats and cook them and then sell them, is this considered wrong livelihood?

Related: Jobs indirectly related to the meat business

It's not wrong livelihood unless you ask the butcher to kill for you.

Just edited the question. Then what does "trading in flesh" mean?

@B1100 I only see edits from yesterday, and the last of your edits deleted "What does trading in flesh mean?"

@Sankhakulathantille Just came across this thread. Meat seller normally provide 1kg of meat daily, for example. Someone opens a restaurant, goes to this meat seller and want to buy 5kg of meat. This makes the meat seller places an order to abattoir in order to meet the demand. Does this count as indirectly ask the butcher to kill?

@Steve if the restaurant owner wants the meat seller to kill, it's wrong livelihood. The restaurant owner is simply looking for meat. He is not looking or desiring to kill. If he cannot find any meat, he will tell the customers meat is not available that day.  The first precept is not broken there.

From Mahayana of the Chinese Lineage, restaurant owner selling dishes with meat is considered not ideal livelihood; to say "wrong livelihood" perhaps too extreme.
The teachings of the Buddha, Prajna Paramita the wisdom is the highest, born from compassion and pure mind. With wisdom the practitioner should understand the spirit of precepts instead of practicing dogmatically, for words are easily hijacked to justify selfish purpose.
To illustrate, say, a restaurant owner is more ideal livelihood than a butcher. Therefore a butcher, in order to sustain himself and his family, he may consider to convert his knowledge and association (about meat) of his current career to perhaps work in or own a restaurant; then from there he can further convert his assets to perhaps work in or own a vegetarian restaurant. This way one accumulated knowledge of different business which added to his wisdom, meanwhile progresses towards the more ideal livelihood aligned with the precepts and teachings.

Wrong livelihood comes from killing animals. If the restauranteur buys meat from the supermarket and cook it , it's not wrong livelihood.
However, if the restauranteur goes to a farm to order 500 kg of meat, it's wrong livelihood because the animals will be killed for the restaurant.


text:
Upaya in Theravada Buddhism and the Pali Canon
According to the article An Explanation of Upaya in Buddhism by Barbara O'Brien:

Mahayana Buddhists often use the word upaya, which is translated
  "skillful means" or "expedient means." Very simply, upaya is any
  activity that helps others realize enlightenment. Sometimes upaya is
  spelled upaya-kausalya, which is "skill in means."
Upaya can be unconventional; something not normally associated with
  Buddhist doctrine or practice. The most important points are that the
  action is applied with wisdom and compassion and that it is
  appropriate in its time and place. .....
In Theravada Buddhism, upaya refers to the Buddha's skill in shaping
  his teaching to be appropriate to his audience—simple doctrines and
  parables for beginners; more advanced teaching for senior students.
  Mahayana Buddhists see the historical Buddha's teachings as
  provisional, preparing the ground for the later Mahayana teachings
  (see "Three Turnings of the Dharma Wheel").
According to some sources just about anything is allowable as upaya,
  including breaking the Precepts. Zen history is full of accounts of
  monks realizing enlightenment after being struck or shouted at by a
  teacher. In one famous story, a monk realized enlightenment when his
  teacher slammed a door on his leg and broke it.
Obviously, this no-holds-barred approach potentially could be abused.

Upaya or "skillful means" is a popular concept in Mahayana Buddhism. When the Buddha tells one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience, based on their specific needs, this is considered upaya.
It might be the case that the teaching to one audience is completely the opposite to the teaching to the other audience in Mahayana Buddhism.
In certain Mahayana traditions, the teacher may even break the precepts (for example, drinking alcohol), or shout at or hit the disciples, as part of the skillful means (upaya) to teach them.

Does this exist in Theravada Buddhism?
Please provide examples of upaya from the Pali Canon.
From the Pali Canon or Theravada Buddhism, would the Buddha even tell completely opposite things to different audiences?
From the Pali Canon or Theravada Buddhism, could the Buddha break his own rules, or even do things like shouting or hitting in order to teach his disciples?

Quibble: I think many Mahayana practitioners would disagree that the Buddha ever taught “completely the opposite” to different audiences as that implies contradictory teachings. I know my teachers would vehemently insist that there are no real contradictions when understood correctly only apparent contradictions to afflicted minds. Nevertheless, I get your point and great question!

I'm a bit frightened in the recent monthes when I followed a blog which focuses abuses in some organizations with buddhistics roots: "skillful means" to educate is often cited as to legitimize beating, shouting, violence... For me "skillful means" or "crazy wisdom" are much more actions of love and/or compassion when "the crowd" wants to react bellicistic or simple cruel. I know this as established meme from the christian paedagogic, and also have a handful of experiences with difficult disciplinaric cases when I was representant in the parent's comittee in the school of my daughter....(ctd)

...(ctd) I say frightened because I ask myself: where to shall this lead, when "upaya" is so prominently used as to legitimate hardness, brutality, sexual abuse (for instance, applied by SR, - reported by the eight elder rigpa-students in july 2017). and I do not see one single reflection from my buddhism-fellows, that "upaya" could include compassioness where "the worldly" would beat...

I posted an answer once, which quoted a Bhikkhu who wrote that Theravada and Mahayana may be different -- in that Theravada are expected to (or want to, will) follow the Vinaya closely even (or especially) at higher stages of enlightenment -- unfortunately I can't find that answer to link to it.

@ChrisW actually there is something similar in Mahayana attributed to Atisha. Unfortunately, this does not mean that all Mahayana guru's follow it :(

AFAIK, breaking precepts that result in unwholesome Karma is never excused in Theravada Buddhism. Especially the five precepts.
Here are few examples of the Buddha using Upaya:

Showing nymphs to prince Nanada to break his attachment towards Janapada Kalyani.
Breaking Khema's infatuation with beauty by showing a beautiful maiden deteriorate in front of her eyes.
Teaching the stanzas to old brahmin who was mistreated by his four sons.

There might be teachings that appear complete opposite if you take the literal meaning of the words or disregard the context. But the teachings never conflict when you understand the full picture.
The Buddha would scold a monk to get him disciplined, but he would never use physical force. Such a need wouldn't even arise to the Buddha. Although monks are allowed by Vinaya to strike another in self defence.
The Buddha may decide not to keep to a lesser(non-offensive) Vinaya rule on certain occasions, but the monks do not have this freedom.

Just to be clear, some zen teachers sometimes striking students as upaya was not about discipline or having some kind of need to use physical force, the purpose was to help the student at an opportune moment to snap out of whatever habitual fabrications and clinging they were stuck with :)

Upaya can be found in the 1st Turning, that is, the Nikayas of Theravada or Agamas of Mahayana, roughly.
Examples (please if someone knows and refers the Pali Canon):

Buddha told the woman who's only son died to beg for some mustard seeds from a family who never had anyone died to make medicine to feed her dead son so he could become alive. (Didn't the Buddha know it's futile and absurd? But he told her to do so.)
Rahula when first admitted in the Samgha, taking privilege of he the Buddha's son, always spoke misleadingly to make fun of others. In order to teach him, one day the Buddha told him to wash his feet with a wooden bowl. After done, the Buddha told him to drink the water in the bowl, Rahula gaped. Then Buddha's teaching stroke in, telling him speaking misleadingly was unwholesome like asking someone to drink that water... [in Madhyamāgama]

However, you said, "...would the Buddha even tell completely opposite things to different audiences?". I wonder how that related to Upaya?
Mahayana is a big school, so is Zen a generalized name (despite the word rented from Japanese people always just assumed it covers the entire Ch'an tradition). Like a school, anyone can easily put on the school uniform pretending the student. You said, "...certain Mahayana traditions, the teacher may even break the precepts (for example, drinking alcohol), or shout at or hit the disciples, as part of the skillful means (upaya) to teach them." Upaya comes from wisdom, however, since it may go as far as testing many rules limitations, sometimes one (likely teacher) lack of wisdom or not really enlightened can being mistaken or mistaking (or the worst, pretending) himself wise and enlightened, thus abusing the "breaking rules". It requires the student with a sound mind of discernment to choose and protect himself from being abused or misled. Blindly worshiping a person is very dangerous, therefore the Buddha not only in one place spoke of "abiding to the Dharma, not the person" (依法不依人), especially in the day when he was about to enter Nirvana, he repeatedly giving this teaching as the final words.
As far as my study (of the Chinese Mahayana lineage) covers, there's no record of any teacher drinking alcohol, except the monk Ji Gong. But he wrote a poem on it, "alcohol and meat just passed the stomach, Buddha in the heart sits", with the 2nd part always being disregarded but he warned, "if others imitated, same with Mara are they!" which said this wrong he scolded. Ji Gong didn't die of alcoholism. Ji Gong living at the time when Bodhidharma went to China, both demonstrated supernatural powers in many records that they were at least Arhats. Again, you quoted, ...a monk realized enlightenment when his teacher slammed a door on his leg and broke it... Is this story in the Japanese Zen Koan? In my study, I only recalled one bloody incident, that was Huike chopped off his own arm in front of Bodhidharma. It was definitely not instructed by Bodhidharma; likely Bodhidharma was shocked too, honestly. But Huike's determination was moving.
Upaya with the nature not appealing to any established rules and formats, not only it's often abused in later days, also the term corrupted and hijacked. Upaya founded upon wisdom, but often wisdom is missing in the practice just used it to excuse selfish or unwholesome deeds.

can you add some references,they look very interesting

What references? If the Pali texts I'm also searching for them. The 1st example in fact I memorized from reading this forum a Pali referred but that was without Sutta name @D.'s

@D.'s I think the first reference is here: Skinny Gotami & the Mustard Seed -- it's technically "paracanonical commentary (to one of the Therigata verses)", if that matters.

@D.'s The second reference sounds like this one (MN 61) -- but not exactly (the Buddha doesn't tell Rahula to drink).


text:
Did Dignaga argue against real relations?
Did Dignaga argue against real relations? I gather that his student, Dharmakirti, did.
I'm asking only because I'd disagree, but am skeptical about universals.

On what basis do you, "gather that his student, Dharmakirti" argued against real relations? I'm just looking for the sources that you are using to inform the context...

i don't have the book to hand, sorry @YesheTenley

DharmaKirti and Dignaga are highly revered in Tibetan Buddhism and their work is used as foundational materials in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries to this day including the famous Sera Jey Monastery. However, they are also considered to have espoused or based their work on either the Yogachara tenet system, the Sautrantika tenet system or some combination thereof.
In brief, Yogachara/Chittamatra is a tenet system of the Madhyamaka and the Mahayana which believes in the selflessness of persons and selflessness of phenomena, but also believes in true existence which is refuted by the Prasangika-Madhyamaka. The Sautrantikas in general did not posit the selflessness of phenomena and are a tenet system strictly associated with the Fundamental Vehicle (like modern Theravada) as opposed to the Mahayana.
So if by "real relations" you mean "true existence", then I think both Dignaga and Dharmakirti posited real relations. If by "real relations" you mean "inherent existence", then I think both refuted real relations.
However, perhaps it is best if you elucidate what you mean by real relations and/or universals otherwise it is very easy in my experience to misunderstand one another. In my experience, when discussing tenet systems precision of language is key and knowing the jargon is very important even if difficult. I'm still struggling with it :)

by relations i just mean the standard dictionary definition. e.g. being taller than. 'universals' is a more obscure term, but for the sake of argument we can mean everything except particulars and relations

I think it is important to understand the Yogachara/Chittamatra viewpoint and especially the three natures doctrine in order to correctly categorize DharmaKirti and Dignaga's thought.
Your usage of the word "real" I think is indicative of true existence and Yogachara does posit true existence.

yes but they do say that universals aren't real

I have a feeling that this is getting to the same issue that was discussed here recently: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26061/13375
In other words, Prasangika does not accept conventional truth to be real from the perspective of an awakened mind. It only accepts conventional truths to be real from the perspective of an ordinary being... ie, conventional truths are only real conventionally ;)
Yogachara on the other hand does not posit such a distinction. For them, conventional truths are real from the perspective of an awakened mind.

i'm not sure, maybe i'm being unclear about what 'universal' means

If my hypothesis above is correct, then from Yogachara perspective (ie, Dignaga and Dharmakirti perspective), "universal" would refer to real things from the perspective of the ultimate. ie, a universal would be an inherently existent thing.
This is the way that Yogachara posits emptiness via two truths.

From the ultimate perspective nothing is real -> everything is empty -> nothing has inherent existence -> ultimate truth
From the ordinary/conventional perspective -> there are real and unreal things -> conventional truth

Given above... the distinction about "real things" between Yogachara and Prasangika would then be answering the question, "from the ultimate perspective, are conventional truths real?" and Yogachara would answer "yes!" and Prasangika would answer "No."


text:
What is real meanning of Prathipathi poojawa?
I know best poojawa is prathipathi poojawa. Does it mean follow the Lord Buddha's instructions? However what is a depth meaning of it? And how can I achieve it?

It means to honor the Buddha by working on purifying the mind and attaining freedom from suffering as he instructed.


text:
What is meant by setting the "wheel" of Dharma in motion?
Namo Buddhaya.
At many places in the texts it is said that the Buddha had set the wheel of dhamma in motion and that it can not be rolled back by anyone.
This sutta is devoted to the understanding of wheel of dhamma.
My questions are based on the above sutta(I am looking for the answer to the first question mainly but you can answer the rest if you want.) :

What is meant by setting the "wheel" of Dharma in motion? Why is it called a wheel?
In the sutta mentioned above following is said :

But when my knowledge and vision of these Four Noble Truths as they
  really are in their three phases and twelve aspects was thoroughly
  purified in this way, then I claimed to have awakened

What are the three phases and twelve aspects of Dhamma?

In the same sutta mentioned above, Buddha says :

“‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned’:
  thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me
  vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.

Why the noble Truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned ?
(I think craving needs to be abandoned and not the Truth)

I think it is better to split this into 3 questions.

Yes. But if the OP wants to ask it as one question, someone can answer it in 3 paragraphs.

You can read about the Dharma Wheel or Dharmachakra in the article "The Dharma Wheel (Dharmachakra) Symbol in Buddhism" by Barbara O'Brien.
In this article, it is stated that the Dharma Wheel is a chariot wheel and it is most commonly depicted as having eight spokes, representing the Noble Eightfold Path.
What happens when a chariot wheel is turned?
The chariot moves of course.
In this case, I suggest that it symbolizes that the chariot of humanity starts moving towards the end of suffering, towards Nibbana.

Ok. Wheel is a wheel because it gets repeated.In what sequence the noble eightfold path gets repeated? Do we begin with right view and end with right concentration and then again we begin with right view ? How is the noble eight fold path cyclic?

What is meant by setting the "wheel" of Dharma in motion? Why is it called a wheel?
Here is my interpretation based on "things I heard here and there" (so not official):
In this ancient metaphor, a human society with its traditional ways is compared with a chariot ("yana", a word that also means "marching ahead"). Presumably, some sage or a visionary sets the chariot in motion, and then it rolls on for some time until it stops. A wheel-turning monarch is a leader who then supports and maintains this traditional order of things.
Apparently the number of wheels in a chariot varies over time. In more ancient texts they are presumably listed as "artha" (success or prosperity) and "dharma" (in this context referring to morality or virtue) balancing each other as society moves from one generation to next. Newer texts are said to have added a third wheel of "kama" (enjoyment), followed by a fourth wheel of "moksha" (the spiritual quest for liberation). It is unclear how many "wheels" were recognized in Buddha's time, 2 or 3, but presumably the wheel of "moksha" or liberation was not added until after the Buddha's lifetime.
We do not know if Buddha knew about this metaphor when he spoke about turning the wheel, but if he did, he would be referring to one specific wheel out of 2 or 3 - the wheel of Dharma.
By turning the wheel of Dharma he was renewing or re-setting in motion the tradition of virtue and high ethics, that has seriously degraded by his time (judging by his criticism of brahmins with their corrupted morality). This tradition was then to be followed by the subsequent generations, propelling society to a greater virtue and thus enabling the growth of prosperity. (Which is kinda what happened if we look at the spread of Buddhism throughout the ancient Asian countries)
The cyclic action here refers to the subsequent generations of people adopting the tradition and passing it on. Each generation of Buddhist students and teachers basically repeats Buddha's path: getting inspired by the possibility of Enlightenment, working on it in one's real life, achieving the realization, and passing some guidelines and insights to the next generation of students.

What are the three phases and twelve aspects of Dhamma?
Copying extracts from this text and putting them into a numbered list:
1st truth:

This is the dukkha ariyasacca': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.
'Now, this dukkha ariyasacca is to be completely known': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.
'Now, this dukkha ariyasacca has been completely known': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.

2nd truth:

'This is the dukkha·samudaya ariyasacca': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.
'Now, this dukkha·samudaya ariyasacca is to be abandoned': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.
'Now, this dukkha·samudaya ariyasacca has been abandoned': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.

3rd truth:

'This is the dukkha·nirodha ariyasacca': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.
'Now, this dukkha·nirodha ariyasacca is to be personally experienced': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.
'Now, this dukkha·nirodha ariyasacca has been personally experienced': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.

4th truth:

'This is the dukkha·nirodha·gāminī paṭipadā ariyasacca': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.
'Now, this dukkha·nirodha·gāminī paṭipadā ariyasacca is to be developed': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.
'Now, this dukkha·nirodha·gāminī paṭipadā ariyasacca has been developed': in me, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, the eye arose, the ñāṇa arose, the paññā arose, the vijjā arose, the light arose.

So 12 aspects, consisting of 3 phases for each of the 4 truths.
Why the noble Truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned ? (I think craving needs to be abandoned and not the Truth)
Yes. Instead of:

This noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned

... it might be better to translate as, something like, "This (truth which is the) origin of suffering is to be abandoned" ... i.e. "craving", as you said: it's craving that's to be abandoned.
The Pali in question is,

‘Idaṃ dukkha·nirodhaṃ ariyasacca’

Piya Tan writes:

Norman adds that

what the Buddha said was that pain should be known, its origin given up, its cessation realized,
    and the path to its cessation practised. Woodward therefore did not go far enough. He should have
    suggested the removal of the word ariya-saccaṁ from all four items in the ‘gerundival’ set.”
    (Norman 1982:385)

There appears to be a copy of that paper here ... which analyses the grammar and compares it to other suttas in which the Truths are described.
Reading that paper might inspire several insights: e.g. that it's difficult to translate Pali accurately; that people have put a lot of work into trying to translate them; that maybe we should have some humility in asserting which is the 'right' translation, and/or "know the truths for ourselves" and not depend only on scholars.
I think this paper concludes that "Noble truth" is maybe a later addition to the sutta: that the phrase "dukkha·samudaya" (origin of suffering) later became known as "dukkha·samudaya ariyasacca" (noble truth of origin of suffering), and that the new phrase became used even in places like the one you mentioned where it isn't appropriate (not appropriate because, as you said, it's not truth that's to be abandoned).

How are the Four Noble Truths cyclic ? There are 3 phases and 12 aspects but how do they repeat ? After last phase does the first phase again starts to appear?

I think they're not meant to be cyclic when they describe the Buddha's experience. The 12 nidanas describe how samsara continues, whereas the 4 noble truths describe how samsara stops or comes to an end: when the Buddha has done what needed to be done (e.g. when dukkha·samudaya has been abandoned and dukkha·nirodha has been experienced), when the tasks are accomplished (i.e. finished), then there's no more becoming.

Perhaps they could be called cyclic or ongoing in the middle phase, i.e. when they "are being known, abandoned, experienced, developed", rather than the end phase when they "have been known, abandoned, experienced, developed".

A symbol of wheel suggests repetition of a pattern. Question is which is that pattern ? What are spokes of the wheel ? What is the hub ? Any references from suttas ?

Perhaps that's answered in the first reference of ruben2020's answer. Maybe there are no references from the suttas? Piya Tan writes, The title “Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta” appears only in the Commentaries. And the Wikipedia articles Aniconism in Buddhism and Dharmachakra suggest it (the wheel symbol) was endemic in the culture (perhaps pre-Buddhist), or perhaps introduced by Buddhists around the time of King Asoka.

I have something interesting to share.
By the grace of Buddha I guess I have found the full meaning of chariot symbolism (including the wheel).
This quote from Jāṇussoṇibrāhmaṇa Sutta (SN 45.4) illustrates the meaning of the chariot and wheel symbol:

This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate
  One, the Teacher, further said this:
“Its qualities of faith and wisdom
  Are always yoked evenly together.
  Shame is its pole, mind its yoke-tie,
  Mindfulness the watchful
  charioteer.
“The chariot’s ornament is virtue,
  Its axle jhana, energy its wheels;
  Equanimity keeps the burden balanced,
  Desirelessness serves as
  upholstery.
“Good will, harmlessness, and seclusion:
  These are the chariot’s
  weaponry,
  Forbearance its armour and shield,
  As it rolls towards
  security from bondage.
“This divine vehicle unsurpassed
  Originates from within oneself.
  The wise depart from the world in it,
  Inevitably winning the victory.”

And on which path the wise departs from the world in it? On the noble eight fold path. It all fits properly.


text:
Meditate about friend's death
Someone I know is dying. If its death doesn't affect me much
 (Sadness, remorse...), I feel meditating about its condition as my own could be very beneficial.
But if its not taking advantage of him, I feel it's still taking advantage of the situation.
And even though I'm very thankful to him, I still feel unconfortable to practice about its death.
Would it be considered as a selfish way to meditate ?

We should meditate upon all ending of life, including the termination of the aggregates conventionally called 'me' & 'you'. For example, meditation upon death should also be done towards cute little children.
As for being "thankful", this is morally inappropriate and shows the mind is unable to truly let go and enter into the Emptiness of impermanence. Being "thankful" is similar to wanting to drink champagne at a funeral.
This said, meditating on the death of a friend is not selfish. It is reality. The scriptures instruct:

Bhikkhus, there are these five themes that should often be reflected upon by a woman or a man, by a householder or one gone forth. What five? (1) ‘I am subject to old age; I am not exempt from old age.’ (2) ‘I am subject to illness; I am not exempt from illness.’ (3) ‘I am subject to death; I am not exempt from death.’ (4) ‘I must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and agreeable to me.’ (5) ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
AN 5.57

And what may be said to be subject to death? Wife and children are subject to death, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares are subject to death. These acquisitions are subject to death; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to death, seeks what is also subject to death.
MN 26

DD, is there any mention of a meditation where on anticipates other bad events happening in order to have an adaptive response?


text:
Are learning signs and counterpart signs a must to enter jhana?
I have been meditating for a while now and i found my way to get into jhana, well i haven't enter jhana but it was more me not fully in knowing how but now i think i understand. But one thing i keep getting stuck on is the signs. I haven't to my knowledge experienced a nimitta. Maybe cause i use visualization to enter the jhanas
From what i gathered first you have initial & sustain thought. Then as time goes on you developed joy. Which brings this pleasant feeling. Then you move your attention from that to the pleasant feeling to enter rapture and the first jhana. So where do any counter or learning sign come in. Is that only for certain meditations

Important note at the beginning: I practice mainly vipassana, if samatha then I do metta meditation. Therefore I don't have a huge amount of knowledge on this subject.
What I do know is this:

What kind of sign appears to the mind depends on the chosen meditation object.
You stay with the object. Don't go with your attention to the effects of the concentration, in your post "...to the pleasant feeling". By moving to a different object you break the concentration.
I don't believe you can just pick any object. There are 40 or so possible objects given by the Buddha. Pick one of those. Also, pick the one that fits your nature. Not every object is advisable for every person.
It's good to adjust what you think of nimitta and jhana are. If you see it more as a natural thing, it can temper your expectations. Which is always a good thing. Have you ever seen figures, animals, faces or so on, in the floor when walking? If yes, then you have seen nimitta (according to my teacher). So, it's not always as fancy as we think.

Anyhow.
Here two site with more info. Maybe it can help you further.
http://rc.leighb.com/more/Nimitta.htm
http://realitysandwich.com/27172/jhanas_meditative_absorptions/

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


text:
Sleep, rest and meditation?
I’m wondering what your meditation practice’s effects are on your sleep. I’m asking this because I have a strange tendency, habit of waking up with very troubled thoughts and memories of past hardships. I’m meditating before and after sleep not only for spiritual goals but also for the purposes of relaxing and letting go of these thoughts.
What are you experiences? Do you know if Buddha had anything to say on this matter?  I would love to hear what you have to say!
Thank you for your kindness,
A Buddhist

I have seen many effects of meditation on sleep. Similarly to you, before and after sleep.
I have had times when my need for sleep is vastly reduced, and I've had times when I don't want to do anything but sleep.
It seems meditation can release stuff. Sometimes it seems to release a kind of 'repressed tiredness' that just needs time to get out. Sometime it releases energy that means sleep need is reduced.
As I've said on another post, what would it be like if, when you wake from sleep with troubled thoughts, you take the time to turn towards those thoughts, and importantly the feelings that go with them, with kindness, gentleness and care? The troubledness, in my experience, is just something in me asking for attention. Wonders can happen when you pay less attention to the rational content of the thoughts, and more attention to the emotional content.


text:
Husband has sexual activity with other woman with the consent of wife
There is a true story where a couple just got married. Soon after marriage, the wife is diagnosed with certain illness by the doctor. To make it short, because of the illness, the wife is not allowed to have sexual intercourse. The wife, however, tells the husband if needed he can have sexual intercourse with other woman to meet his biological need.
In this particular case, if the husband has sexual intercourse with other woman, does he break the 3rd precept? Any source provided to back up the answer would be great.

It does not break the third precept if the husband has the wife's willful(not forced) consent. It's somewhat similar to kings having more than one queen.
Having said that, there is no such thing as a "biological need" regarding sexual pleasures. Water is a biological need, air is a biological need, food is a biological need as you cannot survive without them. You do not need sex to live.

I marked this answer down. The Buddha did not teach celibacy for all people because not fulfilling biological sexual drives for many, such as by not having children, may not kill people biologically but it can cause unhappiness & even mental illness.

Someone can become unhappy and mentally ill for not being able to buy his favorite car or not being able to pass an exam. That does not make it a biological need.

@SankhaKulathantille But I think the husband has to do it with a woman who are not in the list of "prohibited women". "Prohibited women" is a bit ambiguous, for example, one of them is women who are "protected by law". If the local laws prohibiting sexual intercourse outside marriage, do you think the husband is breaking the third precept? What does "women who are protected by law" mean?

The sutta definition of sexual misconduct is obsolete in our current world (although it is popular with the porn addicts that post on Buddhist chat sites). The suttas say parents arrange the marriage of their children therefore there was not a large pool of single (hungry ghost) women to have sex with in the Buddha's time.

Sexual desire is the foundation of samsara & creation yet you compare it to an exam or favourite car?

@Dhammadhatu Lust is just a subset of craving. There are many other types of craving with the potential cause future births. In any case, pleasing one's craving does not count as a biological need.

@B1100 A single independent lay woman would be a valid candidate. She could be a friend, no need to be a prostitute. if the law says you cannot have it outside marriage, apparently it does break the precept. But you have the option to go to a country with more freedom or vote to change the constitution.

@SankhaKulathantille Some translate "protected by law" as "a prisoner", not sure what does that term mean, really. "if the law says you cannot have it outside marriage, apparently it does break the precept". So what you are saying is, "law" as in "protected by law" can also mean local laws? But that sounds like social aspect, sex is sex, no one is hurt, what it has got to do with local laws?

@B1100 Prisoner here means a prisoner of war. It rarely applies these days as there are laws agreed by countries on how to handle such situations. "protected by law" means whatever law enforced in wherever you live.

@B1100 marriage is a social aspect too. That doesn't make it right to do it with another man's wife.

Funny how how you trivialise sex as a mere petty want yet promote having casual sex with modern (non-Buddhist) women. If sex was so trifling, why would you bother with it? Sex & motherhood is a strong natural urge for the maturity of women. The Buddha taught clearly sexual impurity is the taint in a woman. The Buddha was not heedless with sex and particularly how it affect women.

@Dhammadhatu I do not promote having sex. I was merely answering the question. Your comments make very little sense regarding this question.

@Dhammadhatu I think your view is that [some] women need procreative sex (i.e. to have children) for their sanity's sake ... if you wanted to you could write that in your own answer; and add a reference too, to support that, if you know of one. And Sankha's view is, I think, probably based on a strict reading of the scripture, i.e. something like this answer (of Dhammadhatu's), or this answer (of Ven Yuttadhammo's).

Sorry but Sankha's view is unrelated to the suttas as a whole but is merely a partial & improper personal interpretation of the suttas. As for Yuttadhammo, imo, he often teaches false dhamma. The suttas clearly state parents must arrange the marriage of their children (DN 31). There was no place for non-married sex in the mainstream Buddha's society (apart from outcastes & royalty). Women were "protected" by their family until they were married (unless the woman was a mad woman).

@Dhammadhatu "In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion". This is a classic example of you misinterpreting the suttas. Parents arranging marriage as a show of compassion does not imply that arrange marriage is the only method for a man and woman to be together without  breaking the 3rd precept.

@SankhaKulathantille So the consequence of breaking local laws is only social too, right? I.e. he gets punished by locals because he breaks the law of the land. But if the husband goes to a country with more freedom, he doesn't break the precept at all. In the country who doesn't allow such sexual relationship he merely respects the laws but in regard to kamma, it's the same, i.e. intention to have sexual intercourse, regardless he breaks the local laws or not. Is that right?

All sexual activities are bad karma regardless of if it breaks the 3rd precept

@SankhaKulathantille Just because the local law permits sexual relationship outside marriage, it doesn’t make that sexual activity per se more wholesome. In the same way, if the law does not allow the husband to have sexual relationship outside marriage, it doesn’t make that sexual activity per se more unwholesome. In short, law is one thing, defilement(s) of sexual activity is another thing. Is that correct?

@B1100 That depends. Deciding to break the law to entertain one's lust would require a greater attachment to sexual pleasures as compared to doing it when it's allowed. Either way it's unwholesome.

@SankhaKulathantille You are not encouraging people to have sex, not everybody can become a monk and attain nibbana. I understand, either way it's unwholesome but the determining factor I think is not the law but the person's greed, hatred and delusion in regard to his sexual activity. Even if it's allowed by the law, one's lust can be very strong, so it's the lust that counts not what the law says, I think. The law in general, I think, is to support harmony and safety within the society but in the case above, all parties agreed voluntarily with the activity.

@B1100 Why would I encourage people to have sex? You can still be thrown in jail if it breaks the law.

@sankhakulathantille That was what I was saying, even if someone is thrown in jail, it doesn't make the sexual activity  more unwholesome. Because the degree of unwholesomeness depends on the strength of greed, hatred and delusion of the sexual activity, not what the law says.

Nevertheless it still breaks the precept. You can make the same argument for sleeping with another man's wife. But it does break the precept.

The precept has many aspects, above case "only" break the law,  it's not harmful to anyone unless you get caught. If everybody agrees voluntarily with the relationship, sleeping with other  woman is the same as a king who has many queens. If it's not agreed then the sexual activity is harmful even with one's own wife.

But your question is about if it breaks the precept or not. Not whether it is harmful to others. :)

Technically speaking it does break the precept. The purpose of precept is to prevent harm, therefore as long as no one is harmed it's just law, nothing else. Personally, I would call it breaking a law.

breaking the law can cause harm to you.

This is the third precept in Pāḷi:

kāmesu micchācārā veramaṇī-sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi

kāmesu is a locative (“in”) form of the word kāma and means “sexual desire”
micchācārā consists of micchā, which means “wrong”, and ācārā, which is an ablative (“from”) form of ācāra and means “way of behaving”
veramaṇī-sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi means “I undertake the precept of abstaining”

All the precept says is that one has to abstain from behaving badly in the matter of sexual lust. This is a pretty vague statement that depends on one's culture, and Buddhists from different cultures would surely disagree about what it exactly means.
That said, even a traditional Buddhist society could accept polyandry, so we can expect that most Buddhists would also accept the situation you describe, which can be classified as a form of polygamy.

It breaks the third precept whether or not there was wife's consent. Sexual misconduct include engaging sexual activities with multiple women...

Could you provide details about the tradition you are basing your answer on?

Kàmesu micchàcarà verama;

Furthermore, there are only certain scenarios where sexual activity does not violate the third precept:

With an appropriate person, such as wife or husband；
Not knowing it happened (E.g. passed out)。
No enjoyment, even knowing it happens。
Lunatic。
In extreme pain.

Back to the question, are "other" women an appropriate person? Are they prostitute? Or unmarried girls under parents protection? If yes, how could they be "appropriate" persons?
Having said that, the key deciding point is whether the other woman is "Appropriate", NOT whether the "wife consents or not".

The three words “kāmesu micchācārā veramaṇī” are very general, while your answer is very specific. That's why I'm asking for sources of your explanations.

The meaning of those words are very specific if you can grasp the concepts behind. If you have a difference of opinions, feel free to share your views. After then, I will consider sharing my sources, and so should you too.

I marked this question down because it is Dhammically illogical and appears to attempt to justify sexual promiscuity with Dhammic principles. If a man had moral Dhammic commitment to stay with his injured wife then why would the same moral man have uncommitted sex with another woman (unless the woman was a prostitute)? The question makes no sense at all. I think the only way to phrase this question properly is: "Husband has sexual activity with a prostitute with the consent of wife". There is one explicit sutta that literally condemns having sex with prostitutes (although I can't remember it).
For those with a superstitious bent about karma & rebirth, it is obviously due to the man's past karma he has this wife & thus his duty is to look after her faithfully. Possibly in a past life, the man was a sexual abuser of women, such as a pimp or pornography producer, therefore in this life he must look after this woman or otherwise have rebirth in the most severe hell. My guess it is the man's last chance at a 'human birth' before the earth opens up & swallows him into hell of fire.


text:
What does mass donation of the Dhamma mean?
What does mass donation of the Dhamma mean?
How is that done?
Does it include promotion of the Dhamma in public places or the Internet to vast audiences?
According to Itivuttaka 100:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

Here are a couple of lines of Pali (the first two lines of the verse at the end of the sutta):

“Yo dhammayāgaṃ ayajī amaccharī,
Tathāgato sabbabhūtānukampī ;

Here are the same lines from the translation quoted in the question:

He who, unstinting,
made the mass-donation of Dhamma,

Here are the same lines from another translation:

The Tathāgata has made the Dhamma-offering,
Unselfish, compassionate towards all beings;

Looking at the Pali, I think it's saying:

dhammayāgaṃ -- gift of dhamma
ayajī -- something to do with offering or sacrifice?
amaccharī -- without being a miser
Tathāgato -- the Tathagata

That just leaves sabbabhūtānukampī to translate.

I think that sabba means "all" or something like that ... that must be where the "mass" translation is coming from

And bhūtā means something like "a being".

And kampī, I'm not sure, maybe perhaps being "still" or "not trembling" ... or maybe the second translation above suggests that this bit somehow means "compassionate"

Anyway, the Pali suggests to me that the "all" there is associated with the "beings" (i.e. "to all beings") -- and that agrees with the second English translation that I quoted.
So I thik that what's translated as "mass-donation" in the first translation means "donation to all" ... i.e. that the Tathagata gave the dhamma to all beings.
But maybe the sutta (both the Pali and the second translation) is really saying, more literally ...

making the dhamma-offering unselfishly
the Tathagata (and something: compassionate, maybe) to all beings

... i.e. maybe the offering-of-dhamma wasn't "to all" ... and instead only the kampī (i.e. the stillness or compassion or whatever that means) was "to all beings" ... maybe the text could be read either way. This latter way might be more compatible with other suttas: e.g. he was teaching "those with little dust in their eyes" and so on, rather than everyone.

I don't understand though why the word "mass" also appears in previous lines of the translation you're using (because "sabb..." doesn't appear there, in the Pali: it's only in the verse).
Maybe this is the clearer or more straightforward, more literal translation:

The Dhamma-offering

This was said by the Lord…
“Bhikkhus, I am a brahmin, ever accessible to entreaties, open-handed, one bearing his last body, an unsurpassed physician and surgeon. You are my own legitimate sons, born from my mouth, born of Dhamma, fashioned by Dhamma, heirs of Dhamma, not heirs of material things.
“Bhikkhus, there are these two kinds of giving: the giving of material things and the giving of the Dhamma. Of these two kinds of giving, this is the foremost, namely, the giving of the Dhamma. There are these two kinds of sharing … these two kinds of help … these two kinds of offerings: the offering of material things and the offering of the Dhamma. Of these two kinds of offering, this is the foremost, namely, the offering of the Dhamma.”
The Tathāgata has made the Dhamma-offering,
Unselfish, compassionate towards all beings;
Living beings revere such a one,
Gone beyond being, as chief of devas and humans.

You have to understand it the same way as you interpret "mass-donation of material things".
If "mass-donation of material things" means donating gifts to many people, "mass-donation of the Dhamma" means preaching the Dhamma to many people. Just like how the Buddha preached at large assemblies.

Obviously this does not mean promotion of the Dhamma in public places or the Internet to vast audiences because the Dhamma teaching principles are explained in many places, such as:

Let them show their conviction. Perceiving trouble, O Brahma, I did not tell people  the refined,    sublime Dhamma.
MN 26

This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. And this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again Dhamma to those who wish for it and who listen attentively.
The best sort of kind speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again to someone who is interested and who listens well.
AN 9.5

Therefore, before imagining things discursively from English translations, it is probably ideal to examine the Pali, which in this case is the word 'yāgā' (and 'yāgānaṃ').

What does an examination of the Pali, the word 'yāgā', tell you?

i couldn't find the meaning but my point is the principles of Dhamma propagation are already clearly established in Buddhism therefore a new principle will not be found in an obscure sutta that uses a Pali word found nowhere except in that sutta.

No it's not obvious, even from the Suttas you quoted. Downvoting.


text:
During insight meditation
During meditation consciousness of ear nose eye tongue body sensation have disappeared. No sensations for a while  and start emerge of thoughts. When  see the thoughts  clearly there are spaces between them. Suddenly came up a light. Then breath appeared. What is the experience? Is it stream winning?Is the vinnanaya have experience?

can you add more details on your meditiation practise?

I'm not qualified to say for sure what is happening. But some of what you describe sounds like "the knowledge of arising and passing away", which occurs when your mind clearly perceives the rise and fall of every experience. It may result in blissful, ecstatic feelings, lights, and a powerful religious conviction.
Try to remain aware that these are temporary, conditioned phenomena and not "The Truth", although it may feel like it. It is a very important discovery, but it is not the last discovery, and you may soon also experience painful and fearful feelings, too. Be careful of feelings of extreme joy or extreme fear or despair, and be aware that both extremes will pass.


text:
Severe sensations in throat during Vipassana
I have had very strong sensations in my throat since I started practicing Vipassana 2 years back.
They keep changing shapes and sharpness - they started like a picket fence and now are like hard pokey stone(s). They get overwhelming at times and am not able to focus on other body parts.

Has anyone experienced something like this ?
Have you managed to be equanimous in the face of sensations that seem
to be communicating with you?

I haven't had the "throat" experience, but it's not uncommon to have long or recurring periods of some kind of weird painful or uncomfortable physical/somatic sensation. Teachers that I know of link it to the "knowledge of the three characteristics" phase of the Theravada "progress of insight". It's a sign of maturing insight into the non-self nature of your physical and mental sensations.
It's not a reflection on you or the state of your practice- in fact, it may be a sign that your practice is healthy and getting results.
However, if it starts to be accompanied by disturbing imagery or strong negative emotions, especially if it seems linked to memories of past potentially-traumatizing experiences, then reduce your meditation periods and look for professional psychological support before continuing intensive vipassana practice. However, if it stays purely physical/somatic, then it's not that unusual.
You just won't feel equanimous about it in the short term, but your non-equanimous feelings about it can be part of your vipassana practice. Examine the sensations in terms of "vedana" - the quick arising and disappearance of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant feelings.

Great answer from Namrata.
Can you turn towards the experience with curiosity and kindness?
If you can't give your attention to other experience because this is too overwhelming, perhaps it is just something that is asking for attention.
Sometimes, the issue with something like this is merely that it feels ignored. Once we really become interested, in a kindly way, it feels seen and met, and quietens down. Or, it has a story to tell, perhaps of past trauma, etc.
Curiosity and kindness are crucial. Along with gentleness. Just look, see what you can actually know about these.
Perhaps as Andrei suggests, it is connected with smoking. Perhaps turning towards the sensation with kindness might help you see more what is there?

Thank you for that. This resonated with me. I struggle with kindness and compassion towards self. There's a lot of repressed anger and an old belief that expressing it is a "bad" thing, especially for women. I only valued and marked myself on niceness and being selfless, which I now know were not authentic.

It can help to separate out parts of ourselves, and have conversations with them. Perhaps ask them how old they are. Is there anything they need. Much like we would with a young child. Perhaps offer them a hug. Reassurance that you are there for them. Even if it seems ghastly, we can still be kind and loving towards it. If it does seem ghastly, that is almost certainly just a strategy it is taking to get our attention anyway. Its real need will be far more innocuous.

The best material I know of on this approach comes from Focusing, by Eugene Gendlin. It describes a way of engaging with our experience that is very gentle and kind, and thus very helpful to westerners approaching meditation.

Thank you so much. I get what you are saying about having conversations with these parts of myself. It's ironic but a 'need to be heard' comes up the moment I think about my throat :)

Believe it or not I had exactly same problem back in the day, and I used to smoke cigarettes then, which is why I asked if you were a smoker.
I had these nagging sensations in the throat, surprisingly they were somewhat pleasant, as in I actually enjoyed what felt like warmth and movement in my throat. But sometimes they were getting slightly too strong and it worried me. It all started as my self-awareness increased as a result of my Buddhist practice. I did not meditate back then but did apply serious effort to practice mindfulness.
Around the same period of time I felt increasing disgust to the smell and taste of tobacco products. As my self-awareness grew, I kept enjoying the sensations in my throat but did not want to experience the smell and taste in my mouth. Also, my head started spinning a bit too much after having another cigarette. So at some point I started to reduce the frequency and amount I smoked, until I quit. I never applied any force, never used nicotine patches - it just happened by itself, through awareness and disgust and some head spinning. As I quit smoking, the throat sensations have briefly increased, and then were gone forever.
I'm not saying your case is the same, but perhaps it's not entirely out of question that your awareness of your body has increased as a result of your meditation practice, and now you feel what was always there but you simply did not notice before. In a way, this could be interpreted as your throat talking to you: "please stop smoking". Might as well listen :)

I totally believe you because disgust is what am feeling towards cigarettes and fumes too. I have started hating it on my fingers, in my mouth. Thank you for sharing this Andrei.


text:
What is meant by unchastity is the taint in a woman?
Dhammapada 242 and AN 8.15 say:

Malitthiyā duccaritaṃ / malaṃ itthiyā duccaritaṃ

This is translated as:

Unchastity is the taint in a woman. (Buddharakkhita)
In a woman, misconduct is an impurity. (Thanissaro)
Misconduct is a woman’s stain. (Sujato)
A woman’s stain is misconduct. (Bodhi)

The above stain specific to women is found among other stains, as follows:

Bhikkhus, there are these eight stains. What eight?
(1) Non-recitation is the stain of the hymns.
(2) The stain of houses is lack of upkeep.
(3) The stain of beauty is laziness.
(4) Heedlessness is the stain of a guard.
(5) A woman’s stain is misconduct.
(6) Miserliness is a donor’s stain.
(7) Bad unwholesome qualities are stains in this world and the next.
(8) A stain graver than this is ignorance, the very worst of stains.
These, bhikkhus, are the eight stains.

Despite this focus on women above, the definition of sexual misconduct in the suttas is addressed to men, as follows:

He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their
brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with
husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with
flowers by another man.
AN 10.176

My question is why do Dhammapada 242 and AN 8.15 focus on sexual misconduct as the stain of a woman (when they are so many other stains, such as listed in MN 7)?

no buddha must not have said that.  Chastity is stain not only in women but in men also.chastity itself is stain then be it in anybody.

the additions/alterations in original quotes might have been done by male dominant philosophy people.

IMO "woman's stain" is a mistranslation (or at best gives the wrong impression).
The whole chapter (of the Dhammapada) is about ways in which the audience (e.g. you or me) may be stained (or are stained, were stained).
(It would be applicable to "a woman" only if she were the reader, the subject, the audience of the talk -- but in the AN 8,15 context, at least, the audience was all men, all bhikkhus).
I think that (i.e. that it's the audience's stain, or that the audience would be stained if they were blame-worthy) is evident from the context -- for example from the start of that chapter of the Dhammapada:

One by one, little by little, moment by moment, a wise man should remove his own impurities, as a smith removes his dross from silver.

... through to the end ...

Easily seen is the fault of others, but one's own fault is difficult to see. Like chaff one winnows another's faults, but hides one's own, even as a crafty fowler hides behind sham branches.

He who seeks another's faults, who is ever censorious — his cankers grow. He is far from destruction of the cankers.

It's meant as advice to you ... and is not a statement that's meant to censure "a woman" (itthiyā).
Similarly you may be stained by ...

Your being lazy in the presence of beauty
Your having a house and being negligent (or, possibly, being negligent because you have a house)
Your misconduct with a woman

The Pali (Malitthiyā duccaritaṃ or malaṃ itthiyā duccaritaṃ) doesn't have all the prepositions which translators add to the English (at most the Pali nouns are declined, have a case ... I think itthiyā is declined like jāti, for what that's worth, so the syntax doesn't distinguish whether it's genitive, locative, dative, ablative, or instrumental; there's no verb).
I think the word-order in the Dhammapada is unreliable (it's highly condensed, to make it verse); but that the word-order in AN 8.15 i.e.

malaṃ, bhikkhave, itthiyā duccaritaṃ

... implies that the word itthiyā is there to qualify the type of misconduct, and not there to be the agent, owner, or object of the stain.

I cross-posted this to SuttaCentral -- Questioning the translation of AN 8.15, “Misconduct is a woman’s stain”.
I also wrote there that I think that the translations (or at least the interpretations) of most of the other stains are questionable too.

@Dhammadhatu The reason I posted on SuttaCentral was that, when (in this answer) I contradicted the grammar of every translator you quoted, including Ven. Sujato's translation, I thought I should ask for a second opinion. What do you think of this answer: do you think the Pali you quoted is saying that "misconduct is a woman's stain", rather than, "misconduct with a woman would stain you"?

I realize that this text is translated, therefore, this may not be an accurate comment, but I respectfully suggest that in the text the woman is passive to the misconduct (receives it), but in the comments/answers you are assuming she is perpetrating it. In some cultures a woman who is adulterous is still the passive person because she "received" the advances of the other man. There is also nothing to make clear if she was willing in the story. The man may be distraught because she was assaulted and he failed to protect his wife. (he is ashamed in the story, not angry with her).
This is what I mean:
"He engages in sensual misconduct." the man is the actor of the misconduct
"1) Non-recitation is the stain of the hymns." the hymns are stained by not being recited, they are not active in their own "stain" but the inaction of others makes them stained.
"(2) The stain of houses is lack of upkeep." here the house which is not maintained is stained by the inattention of others. It is passive to the action.
"(3) The stain of beauty is laziness." again, same, the beauty which would shine is diminished (stained) by others not expressing/creating it.
"(4) Heedlessness is the stain of a guard." this is a little less clear. When I take the definition of heedlessness as ( adjective. 1. careless; thoughtless; unmindful: Heedless of the danger, he returned to the burning building to save his dog.) I can see that a guard put in unnecessary danger by others or that he may be careless. Both are valid to the text as translated.
"(5) A woman’s stain is misconduct." she is stained by the misconduct, but it does not say if she is the doer, or someone does to her this misconduct. It could be completed as a woman's stain is a man's misconduct or a woman's stain is the result of her own misconduct Perhaps it is both and that is why neither is specified.
"(6) Miserliness is a donor’s stain." it is unclear if it is his own miserliness (the limit to his generosity), the lack of other people's joining him, or his giving (he is a donor) without clean motivation.
"(7) Bad unwholesome qualities are stains in this world and the next." neither this world nor the next are the perpetrators of the unwholesome qualities, they are stained by the actions of others.
"(8) A stain graver than this is ignorance, the very worst of stains." if I understand it, this is a continuation of the 7th, that this world and the next are stained by the ignorance of others (not their own).
"My disciple, women are just like a river, or a road, or a liquor shop or a rest house, or a water-pot stand at the roadside; they associate with all sorts of people. Indeed, sexual misconduct is the cause of ruin for a woman."
all of the items listed (river, road, liquor shop, rest shop, water-pot stand) are objects, not perpetrators of the action. they are perhaps temptations, but not actors. Noticeable that none of them have the power to stop the person who associates with them (the water-pot-stand cannot turn away the thirsty passer-by)

Yes I don't see (in the language of the text) that it can't be interpreted that way; and SFAIK it is interpreted that way in some present-day cultures (not necessarily Buddhist).

Perhaps it's not "the woman" who is stained either: e.g. maybe it's not that hymns are stained, but rather the man who doesn't recite them when he should. Nor is it the house that's stained by neglect, if "stain" means something like "sin": instead, it's the neglectful house-holder's stain. That interpretation doesn't match the Dhammapada's commentary, "which says the wife committed adultery" (the commentary isn't "canonical" ... only the verse is canonical), but this would match a thesis that the whole chapter is warning the reader against their own impurities, derelictions of duty or virtue.

@chrisw taking yr lead, walking that path- I read stain as a badge such as the Star of David in WW2/Scarlet A in USA (I use the house as the object, since that is less tender). If I as a home-owner do not maintain my home I am shamefilled (my behaviour shameful), but the house (by my inaction), literally has wear on its face. The house wears the badge or do I ? or do we each ? Since the house has no idea of care/lack, then it cannot be affected by the badge/shame. I, however can feel the shame. If I then transpose that to the "wife", when I do "misconduct" to her, I stain myself, (and her ?)

After your insight, I have revised my own answer a lot.

@ChrisW I hope the revision was because something positive came from your experience of this exchange. It was certainly not written with ire or any desire to push you in a certain direction. I enjoyed the discussion in much the same way I might enjoy pondering poetry or (philosophical) logic... not with a desire to win, but rather with a desire to understand more deeply.  thank you for the shared experience.

I hope it's a better answer now. I didn't imagine you were writing with ire. TBH I wrote my first answer with a little ire: from all four translations in the OP attributing misconduct to "a woman" (see also how the phrase "a woman" was characterised in this speech i.e. the paragraph in the second half which begins "Freud famously said...", although that association is a sankhara or mental formation on my part). Anyway I assumed you were poking it just to try to improve on the answer; I hope everyone might "win" given a better understanding.

Thoughtful answer, worthy of positive acknowledgement, however, for me, it does not answer the question.

@Dhammadhatu thank you, yes, you are quite right. The answer I posted was (partly) in answer to other answer, which have since been modified. I was wondering if I should revise. Your opinion is timely. You are right, my answer no longer works for this question. I will revise/delete it shortly (in next days) so that it comes closer to being useful. Thank you for taking the time to leave helpful feedback.

Women who know only one man sexually and have a reasonably moral husband will instinctually, for the most part, remain fiercely loyal & bonded to that man & particularly to their family. This is why virginity is cherished in basically every major religion and this is why sexual misconduct either by a woman or towards a woman taints a woman. Her natural instinctual bonding can be lost; which also explains why in our current era of sexual liberalism there are so many struggles by women (and men) in maintaining relationships; why so many women are hungry ghosts; why so many women are using antidepressants; and why so many women crucify a man in divorce out of revenge.
AN 6.52 states:

Women have a man as their ambition. They explore for adornments. They’re committed to their children. They insist on being without a
  co-wife. Their ultimate goal is domination.