text:
Is Jesus considered to be a buddha?
I was wondering what main stream Buddhism think of Jesus, was he a buddha?
Can anyone tell me where Jesus fits into Buddhism?

Buddhism teaches that all misbeliefs(beliefs that block the path to Nibbana) are variations of 2 fundamental misbeliefs.

Sasvatha Vada - Eternalism
Uchcheda Vada - Nihilism

What Jesus preached falls under Sasvatha Vada. Hinduism and Islam are also in the same category. So he couldn't have been even an average Buddhist teacher, let alone a Buddha. Besides, the next Buddha to appear is Maitreya Buddha, the last Buddha of this aeon. After that many aeons will come to pass without even a single Sammasambuddha. So there won't be another Buddha for a long time.

What's the best source of that teaching (i.e. that all misbeliefs stem from those two)?

"Thus have I heard" :) Will post a link when I find the exact place.

Actually there's a 3rd. That is the false view of self. Taking the five aggregates as the self. But that is a part of both Nihilism and Eternalism. It doesn't block the path to enlightenment unlike the above mentioned. More at http://theeyeofdhamma.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html

"Besides, the next Buddha to appear is Maitreya Buddha. So there won't be another Buddha for a long time." Hmm.. You seem to think you know something you couldn't possibly know. But then, if you take the sutras literally, this would be your belief.

Even if you don't take the suttas literally and come up with your own interpretation, it would still be your belief, whereas mine is a common and an accepted belief :)

As a preliminary, there are two issues to deal with first that can hinder a search for linkages between Jesus and Buddhism.
First, it's important to note that the religion associated with Jesus -- Christianity -- is just as forked and complex as the "religion" commonly known as Buddhism. To insiders in both, there are many differences, both significant and otherwise, but to outsiders each one they can look like a single monolithic block (that's why we have a single name for each). In this respect, the last line of the question is a good one because it asks about Jesus and Buddhism, rather than about Christianity and Buddhism. Still, if we're looking for possible links, we can certainly look at the faiths themselves, provided we take care to look inside them and not just at each as a single whole (because in fact, they're not single wholes).
The second issue is that Christianity (I was a Christian, for over 30 years -- still may be one for all you know :-) ) does have a tendency to attack dissent. Catholicism is particularly prone to that. As a result, some groups may be considered "Christian" by outsiders, but insiders may respond "no, they're heretics, they're not Christians". For example, if one was to point to the work of Meister Eckhart as being similar to some aspects of Buddhism, one risks falling foul of very orthodox Catholics who would point out that Eckhart came under scrutiny by the Inquisition. And references to Quietism would get an even bigger slap down. Even today, many calling themselves Christian would not consider Mormons or Jehovas Witnesses to be Christian. In fact, some don't believe Roman Catholics to be Christian. But those critiques are critiques from the inside. For people looking objectively from the outside, a more dispassionate approach is probably wise.
In that light, here are some connections I personally find interesting and even potentially profound.
There's a talk by the late Ayya Khema, where she suggests a possible connection between some of the Buddhist meditation absorptions and the seven "mansions" mentioned by St Teresa of Avila in her "Interior Castle". The talk was on YouTube until very recently but has been taken down for copyright reasons.
There are also clear similarities between the experiences recounted in St John of the Cross's "The Dark Night of the Soul", and some of the stages of insight as described in the Visuddhimagga, especially as further described by Daniel Ingram in "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha".
Several ostensibly Christian works deal with the contemplative side of that religion, and include "The Cloud of Unknowing" and more recently works such as those by Thomas Merton and Fr. Thomas Keating.
Also, there's an interesting BBC-produced documentary (available on YouTube) that speculates about a possible link between Jesus and Buddhism. A point I found particularly interesting was their theory on who the "Three Wise Men" of Christian fame actually were. The documentary speculates they may have been Buddhists searching for the reincarnation of a prior leader or holy man.** The documentary is not all about the potential Buddhist link, but the main points it makes in that context are:

There are reasonable arguments to be made that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross; instead he survived and escaped
There are major missing years from all accounts of Jesus' life, and those could well correspond to a training time (further East)
The Three Wise Men thing
The significance of compassion and selflessness in Jesus' teachings

Then, broadening out from Christianity to the contemplative sides of other religion -- e.g. Jewish Kabbalah, Muslism Sufism -- Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" is a good argument on how once the societal trimmings are stripped away, the contemplative aspects of numerous religions seem to be plumbing precisely the same well. B. Alan Wallace talks about that book, as a follow on in his reading from Evan-Wentz's "The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation") in his videos on his "Buddhist Journey" (three parts on YouTube, starting here).
My overall conclusion is that it is credible that Jesus had developed an advanced capability in meditation/contemplation/prayer/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, and in compassion, and also had the charisma, ability, and timing to represent an effective teacher of those things. There are then several possible reasons we don't see that easily today. For example:

Maybe he had simply achieved high levels of samadhi but hadn't gone further onto insight, and so hadn't experienced enough to override, or at least re-interpret, his default monotheistic Judaism
Maybe he had gained some insight, but got waylaid by views of higher heaven realms, thinking those were the final deal. Had he gone further, maybe he'd have realized that the Deva realm wasn't the final goal.
Maybe he did go the full way -- maybe he was an arhat -- but subsequent political events, such as, initially, the influence of Roman Emperor Constantine or maybe just the interpretations of St Paul, but later on the politicization of Catholic Christianity as it spread, not to mention the defensive posture taken by Christianity in the face of the advance of modern science, have smothered the core teachings of Jesus and what we have today is a highly adulterated form.

--
** That said, the facts that a. the most commonly seen examples of searches for reincarnations are in Tibetan Buddhism, and b. Tibetan Buddhism didn't arise until several centuries after the time of Christ, make less credible the theory that the three wise men were Buddhist. And in fact the most commonly accepted current view is that they were Zoroastrians.

Fantastic answer (I'd already +1 before). I'm a believer in a commonality of religious experience (but that might be just a wonky theory). I think interpretations of enlightenment experience or at least higher meditative states are coloured by culture. A friend who is an ex-Christian was speaking about 3rd dhyana and beyond - she said if she had still been a Christian the dhyanic experience would have been to her communication with God - she felt God

Yes great answer, although the Three Wise Men could not have been Tibetan Lamas, as Buddhism did not reach Tibet until much later.

Good point. I'll modify "lamas" so it doesn't specifically imply Tibet -- I'm not sure the documentary was making that specific a point.

Very enlightening with regard to the subject.

That is a brilliant answer!

I think when discussing this kind of thing it is to start seeing connections where there are none. However I would like to give a more positive response to the question. If I can address this side of the question

Can anyone tell me where Jesus fits into Buddhism?

Thich Nhat Hanh wrote a lovely book about the parallels between the Buddha and Jesus called Living Buddha, Living Christ

When we meet someone overflowing with love and understanding [..] we
  know that they are very close to Buddha and to Jesus

While this doesn't point to an exact relationship between Buddha and Christ, it does draw our attention to a commonality between them, certainly in the opinion of Thich Nhat Hanh.
Perhaps the parallels are more evident the nearer one comes to the original Christianity. For instance when I read parts of the Gospel of Thomas (an early Christian Gnostic text) parts of it resonated more than I thought it would - for instance

Rather the Kingdom is inside of you and it is outside of you. [...]
  When you come to know yourself, then you become known and you will
  realise that it is you who are the children of the living Father

In the introduction to the Living Buddha, Living Christ, Elaine Pagels the historian of early Christianity states

[Experienced meditators] will surely notice in those early Christian
  sources many more resonances [between Christianity and Buddhism], than
  I can mention here. Comparative study of Buddhism and early (Gnostic)
  Christianity has barely begun.

I think generally if Elaine Pagels and Thich Nhat Hanh find it profitable to look for similarities between the two religions then I would be inclined to think there is actually something there.

+1 for considering the Gospel of Thomas.

(I'm writing this in the spirit of providing a factual answer instead of preaching how people should strive to get along by seeing similarities in religions that may or may not be there.)
No. That's a different religion. We search for commonality amongst world religions so we don't have to hate on each other, but the religions are different.
To quote two relevant paragraphs from Donald Lopez & Robert E. Buswell:

Many think of Buddhism as a tolerant religion, one that recognizes the
  value of all religious traditions. In recent years, there have been
  growing numbers of Buddhist-Christian dialogues and Buddhist-Jewish
  dialogues. The Dalai Lama has even commented on the gospels. This
  might suggest that Buddhism holds that all religions are one, that all
  spiritual paths lead to the same mountaintop. Nothing could be further
  from the truth.
Buddhists have never proclaimed the unity of religions. Early Buddhist
  texts are filled with accounts of non-Buddhist masters claiming to
  have achieved enlightenment when in fact they have, at best, only
  achieved rebirth in the higher heavens of the immaterial realm
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/one-way-nirvana

Now, if you specifically have in mind the syncretic Christian-Buddhist sangha in Baltimore, MD I've read about, then I imagine they have integrated the Buddha and Jesus into a common framework.

There's no official stance towards Jesus as far as I know, in any tradition. The reason is that these traditions were established well before Christianity's existence was even known. Christianity took thousand of years to reach East Asia, for instance.
But from my personal point of view (which is a Japanese Pure Land point of view) I will say that I believe Amida, the Buddha of Infinite Light, takes on many forms to reach people with the message that the fundamental reality is wisdom-compassion or love.
So I see all buddhas and bodhisattvas as discrete manifestations of Amida Tathagata. I consider Jesus Christ to be a discrete manifestation of Amida because he taught joy and faith and relying on love. However, as a Pure Land Buddhist, I still think that Christianity is not yet completely Other-Power faith, and so is still rooted in self-power (and therefore ego-attachment).
Even the monergistic forms of Christianity such as Calvinism that teach sole reliance on Other-Power still lack universal salvation. God chooses specific people to save, based on his arbitrary will. This is not the spirit of Mahayana Buddhism. In Mahayana all sentient beings (and in some readings, even insentient beings) will ultimately achieve full Buddhahood, without exception.
So, this spirit of universal salvation is the reason I think Christianity isn't the ultimate and why it is "not far from Buddhahood", yet still not fully there, as in the following story:

A university student while visiting Gisan asked him: "Have you ever
  read the Christian Bible?" "No, read it to me," said Gisan. The
  student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye
  thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow.
  They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even
  Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...Take
  therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought
  for the things of itself." Gisan said: "Whoever uttered those words I
  consider an enlightened man." The student continued reading: "Ask and
  it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be
  opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that
  seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened." Gisan
  remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from
  Buddhahood."

Gisan Zenkai (儀山 善来　1802–1878)
source:  Zen Flesh, Zen Bones

Well that was a good answer but a few things I would have to adress is when you said............ Christianity is not yet completely Other-Power faith, and so is still rooted in self-power (and therefore ego-attachment).......... I would have to say that christianity is a egoless path because there entire religion is not based upon there deeds to get to paradice, its all based upon christ's sacrafice and God's love so there is no room for a christian to boast or have ego. It is actually one of God's decrees that he dislikes ego and loves the humble and the meek.

I would also like to adress when you said........ all
sentient beings (and in some readings,
even insentient beings) will ultimately
achieve full Buddhahood, without
exception........... this concept could be harmful because one could then say "I could keep commiting murders for thousands of life times and ultimately one day still become a full budda . If all eventually reach full buddhahood then what should deter one from deciding to just commit murders for thousands of lifetimes, what is to deter him if one believes all ultimately reach full buddhahood at the end.

Hey eliyah ... let me address the second concern first. "If all eventually reach full buddhahood then what should deter one from deciding to just commit murder" - all will reach Buddhahood yes, including murderers, but this doesn't specify when it will happen. It may involve many visits to various hells such as the Avici hell (Hell of Incessant Suffering). I think that's quite a deterrent. Yes, all paths lead to Buddhahood, but some are short-cuts (like relying on Amida Buddha for salvation), while some others take many lifetimes, and visits to various Hells, which can last for trillion aeons.

As for "Other Power": you're right ... as I said, Christianity is very close to Pure Land Buddhism in being completely reliant on other-power. However, Christians still engage in things like petitionary prayer which to me doesn't show a complete and total reliance on a other-power.

Oh hey, commented before I saw your answer.  Originally read that on http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/16notfarfrombuddhahood.html  (= thank you for sharing

simply answer is No, Jesus is considered as son of God. Buddha was a human his parents are all human and he never reborn.
All Buddhas have certain features that are directly used to differentiate a Buddha from others. Those features will clear out your doubts. And the "Buddha" is a kind of designation, not a person.
I found a great answer here but its written in Sinhala. Can someone help me with translating this to English. "https://www.facebook.com/muduna/posts/699269543482977:0"
Also, there is a nice read at https://tibettalk.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/the-lost-years-of-jesus-in-tibet/ where it says Jesus learned Buddhism

Yea Humans, but isn't there mentioned Jesus is considered as son of God even he born to humans. But Buddha has no relation to god.

Tricky point, Buddha was an human, but was able to see and do things other humans couldn't, same thing for Jesus that was able to perform miracles according to the Bible. I think both had an human body and an human existence, but they were able to go far beyond that, what this "far beyond" means will be different for Buddhist and Catholics, in the same way the reasons behind it will be different, so I will stop here.

kind a super humans cause they develop their brain well. But Still unclear definition of a god. Goutham Buddha has mentioned about previous buddhas. And their teachings. All buddhas have certain features that are directly use to differentiate a buddha from others. Those features will clear out your doubts. You can find it out

Actually, 'The Son Of God' was a deliberate mistranslation. The actual text reads 'A Son Of God', stating without doubt that all humans were Sons of God. John 10:34-36.. at the end there. They really don't like to translate the Greek properly, but properly done, it is the indefinite article "A" not "The". And there are many more mistranslations, done  intentionally to prevent people from really getting the point.

This question is answered in the Brahmajala Sutta of the Dighaikaya.
BUDDHA ON GOD

There comes a time, monks, sooner or later after a long period, when this world contracts.  At a time of contraction, beings are mostly
  reborn in the Abhassara Brahma world.  And there they dwell,
  mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through space,
  glorious - and they stay like that for a very long time." "But the
  time comes, sooner or later after a long period, when this world
  begins to expand again [Com: known as 'Big Bang' in Western Science].
  In this expanding world an empty palace of  Brahma [Com: the Indian
  name for the highest God] appears.  And then one being, from
  exhaustion of his life-span or of his merits, falls from the Abhassara
  world and arises in the empty Brahma-palace.  And there he dwells,
  mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through space,
  glorious - and he stays like that for a very long time."
  "Then in this being who has been alone for so long there arises unrest, discontent and worry, and he thinks:  ‘Oh, if only some other
  beings would come here!’  And other beings, from exhaustion of their
  life-span or of their merits, fall from the Abhassara world and arise
  in the Brahma palace as companions for this being.  And there they
  dwell, mind-made, … and they stay like that for a very long time."
  "And then, monks, that being who first arose there thinks:  "I am God, the Great God, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing,
  the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer
  and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.   These beings
  were created by me.  How so?  Because I first had this thought:  ‘Oh,
  if only some other beings would come here!’    That was my wish, and
  then these beings came into this existence!"   But those beings who
  arose subsequently think: "This, friends, is God, Great Brahma, the
  Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the
  Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of
  All That Have Been and Shall Be.  How so?  We have seen that he was
  here first, and that we arose after him.

BUDDHA ON JESUS

"And this being that arose first is longer-lived, more beautiful and
  more powerful than they are.  And it may happen that some being falls
  from that realm and arises in this human world.  Having arisen in this
  world, he goes forth from the household life into homelessness.
  Having gone forth, he by means of effort, exertion, application,
  earnestness and right attention attains to such a degree of mental
  concentration that he thereby recalls his last existence, but recalls
  none before that.  And he thinks:   ‘That Brahma, … he made us, and he
  is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same for
  ever and ever.  But we who were created by that Brahma, we are
  impermanent, unstable, short-lived, fated to fall away, and we have
  come to this world.’

BUDDHA ON PROPHET LIKE JESUS

“Once, monks, there lived a master and a faith founder named Sunetta,
  who was free from greed for sensual pleasures. And there lived once a
  master and a faith founder named Mūgapakkha - Aranemi - Kuddālaka -
  Hatthipāla - Jotipāla -  Araka, who was free from greed for sensual
  pleasures. This master however had many hundreds of disciples. And he
  showed the way to rebirth under the Gods of Brahma to his disciples
  [Comm: as "Angels in the vicinity of God" - an alternative translation
  closer to the understanding of the Western culture]. Those now, which
  did not show confidence, when the master pointed out the way to
  rebirth in heaven, all those arrived with the decay of the body, after
  death, into lower existence, on a suffering track, into the abysses,
  to hell. Those however, who showed confidence, all those arrived after
  the decay of the body, after death, on the lucky track, into heaven.
  What do you think, o monks? If someone insulted with malicious thought
  these seven masters and faith founders, who had turned away from
  sensual pleasures and who had hundreds of disciples, wouldn't such a
  one load a debt on himself? “ - “Certainly, o Blessed One.” - “Who
  insults however, monks, only one human being, who has realized Nirvana
  with malicious intention or defames him, loads a still larger debt on
  himself.

*Anguttara Nikaya.VII. 69 Defamation of the noble ones
quotes taken from "http://christianity.nibbanam.com/" but they are found in the Suttas

Mu.
Division is violence.
The mainstream of any religion tend to be pretty hard-core about the uniqueness of their belief system because they derive an identity from it, and most people will even share the food on their plate, but not their sense of identity. This is the basis for all religious conflict.

"All the adjectives and nouns that we use to describe waves cannot be used to describe God. We can say that this wave is high or low, big or small, beautiful or ugly, has a beginning and an end. But all these notions cannot be applied to water. God is neither small nor big. God has no beginning or end. God is not more or less beautiful. All the ideas we use to describe the phenomenal world cannot be applied to God. So it's very wise not to say anything about God. To me the wisest theologian is the one who never speaks about God."

Please read the books

Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers
Living Buddha, Living Christ

both by Thich Nhat Hanh

In Going Home, he focuses on fundamental concepts that still drive a wedge between the two religions--such as rebirth vs. eternal life, God vs. nirvana, and so on. After praising the differences between Christianity and Buddhism, Nhat Hanh proceeds to dissolve them in virtuosic style. Not only did Jesus meditate, he says, but God is equivalent to nirvana. This effort to free us from limiting concepts is Nhat Hanh's way of paving a road back to Christianity for Christians who have been attracted to Buddhism but alienated from their original faith. In effect, Nhat Hanh is dressing up Christianity in the garb of philosophical Buddhism, which isn't too far off from what certain progressive Christian thinkers have themselves done in different terms. Mindfulness engenders concentration, concentration leads to understanding, understanding strengthens faith, and faith provides the energy to practice mindfulness. More conventional Christians may balk at this blending of traditions, but for many lost souls, it will be a beacon back to a warm hearth.
He considers it a waste of time to discuss "whether God is a person or not a person," although the Incarnation question carries profound weight in Christianity; he also asserts that "nothing can come from nothing," although creatio ex nihilo is a fundamental Christian tenet. Buddhism is better understood in these pages, but distinctive Buddhist beliefs can also stand in the way, says Hanh: individuals can become too attached to their own ideas of nirvana, forgetting that "nirvana means extinction of all notions."

If you believe in Shakyamuni Buddha the answer is No, because Buddha was clear about the previous Buddha Kassapa and the next Buddha Maytreia, but many people debate about Jesus being a boddisatva or an enlighted being, but it is just impossible for us to answer that, just keep in mind that both are great religions but they dont share 100% of their views.

Just to mention there are different types of Buddhas (private Buddhas and the Buddhas that teach the Dhamma, like the fully enlighted Shakyamuni Buddha) but still I think the answer is no, because Jesus taught the disciples, a pratyekabuddha would probably not do that.

Is Jesus considered to be a Buddha ?
When Buddhism was introduced to the west many western teachers engaged in what can only be described as buddhist christianity. Main Christian thinking was blended with Buddhist concepts. The irony here is that Christian thinking and Buddhist thinking are each other opposites.
The Buddha ascribed the cause of suffering to a way of thinking that he called Papanca. Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains this kind of thinking as follows:

“...papañca begins when your thinking takes you, the thinker, as its object. And as we will see, this object requires other objects in order to survive. This is why “objectification” seems to be the best translation for the word. It’s from treating yourself and the world around you as objects—rather than as events or processes—that the perceptions causing inner and outer conflict derive.
The Canon contains several lists of these perceptions, and in every case states that they ensnare the mind in conflict and difficulty. For instance, AN 4:199 lists 18 “craving-verbalizations” that derive from this perception, verbalizations by which craving ensnares the mind:
“There being ‘I am,’ there comes to be ‘I am here,’ there comes to be ‘I am like this’ … ‘I am otherwise’ … ‘I am bad’ … ‘I am good’ … ‘I might be’ … ‘I might be here’ … ‘I might be like this’ … ‘I might be otherwise’ … ‘May I be’ … ‘May I be here’ … ‘May I be like this’ … ‘May I be otherwise’ 3 … ‘I will be’ … ‘I will be here’ … ‘I will be like this’ … ‘I will be otherwise.’”
MN 2 lists 16 questions that grow out of the thought, “I am”:
“‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ … ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’” (source)

Christian, and for that matter western thinking is a pure example of Papanca. So, was Jesus a Buddha or did Jesus practice the Buddha’s teachings? The answer to this question can only be:
he couldn’t have been unless he was a very confused student

The book Jesus Lived in India speculated Christ was a disciple of Buddha but current form of teaching in the bible there is much divergence to believe this.
If this is the case and considering how he behave at the cross we can speculate that Christ might have been a Bodhi Sattva. This is speculation though.
In one Buddhist era there can only be one Buddha and the next is Mitriya. Thence, no Christ is not a Buddha but perhaps at most (if we were to speculate) a Bodhi Sattva or just a disciple.

The difference between Jesus and Buddha is the difference between a mystic and a master.
And that difference is meditation.
I see little evidence that Jesus was a meditative individual. Buddha left behind clear evidence of meditation, I find this lacking in Christianity.
The message of Buddhism is "seek within". It is a meditative message.
The message of Christianity appears to be "seek without". There is some idea that there is a 'God' outside of us. Some 'we/Him' duality.
If Jesus' message was indeed this, he was not fully awake and had not experienced his Buddha nature.
And if his message was really the same as that of Buddha, one has to ask: how come he was so absolutely unsuccessful in communicating his message?  If Jesus was indeed enlightened, his message has become negated.  Buddha was able to clearly broadcast his ideas, whereas Jesus's have been turned upside down from the beginning. Countless individuals attained to enlightenment through Buddha. But from Jesus, not a single one. Many Buddhas came from Buddha. But no Jesuses from Jesus. And certainly no Buddhas from Jesus.
The Christian notion of God is a projection of the notion of self. A kind of reflection/inversion/complement. A kind of 'best possible self'. When the idea of self is transcended, this notion also dissolves.
It seems to me that Jesus did attain a degree of enlightenment, but as a mystic not a master. A mystic lacks reason. But has transcended the self. Whatever they do is completely selfless, a pure channelling of the divine. And being in the presence of a mystic, your own sense of self will disappear, you'll find yourself ecstatic, Grace will enter, transformation will occur.
It seems to me that Jesus was a mystic, and touched those around him in this way.
However, Buddha worked at a higher level still, by bringing this energy to rest, by focusing it to a single point.

Jesus didn't exist during The Buddha's time, there are some Buddhists who consider Jesus to be at least a higher being, but it is uncertain if he actually was an arahant or Buddha.
He obviously can't be Maitreya Buddha, but he could be an arahant or pacceka Buddha.
It could be that he took birth from the Brahma worlds but is not actually an arahant or it could be that he really was an arahant or Buddha.
Some people think that Jesus traveled to India.
The Buddha (and many of his disciples) had superhuman abilities and walked on water, it's mentioned over and over again as one of the iddhis that people attain:

"When a monk has thus developed & pursued the four bases of power, he
  experiences manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes
  many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He
  goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through
  space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks
  on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged
  he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches
  & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises
  influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds." -
  Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta (SN 51.20, recurs over and over again in the Pali canons)

Walking on water is one of the miracles Jesus is famous for, according to Christian scriptures he also performed many other miracles, but these were just normal things for arahants and disciples.
It is important to note that merely having iddhi powers doesn't mean that someone is actually a Buddha or even an arahant, but someone who is an arahant should be able to (if he desired) to gain iddhi powers.
It is quite obvious that in this modern world there must be few known arahants, it should be easy for a real arahant to obtain iddhi powers. Many people who believe themselves to be arahants or Buddhas are not.
It also important to note that arahants and Buddhas teach differently depending on the environment they arise in, the people they appear to and the method by which they personally achieved enlightenment.
According to Christian scriptures Jesus was higher than the angels, according to the Pali canons Buddha was superior to the devas and the Brahmas in the universe.
In the earlier Pali canons arahants are equal to Buddhas, but predictions of next Buddhas in the earlier Pali canons do not recur so it is uncertain to me if they are accurate like how other things recur over and over again.
In the earlier Pali canons the distinction between an arahant and Buddha is only that the Buddha is the supreme teacher. An arahant can teach and give teachings, but a Buddha is the supreme teacher.
There can be many arahants and pacceka Buddhas that arise in the world that are technically equal to the Buddha, but not the same as the Tathagata.
The Buddha referred to himself as an arahant and after enlightenment prior to the request from Brahma Sahampati gave teachings to people he encountered even when he hadn't opened the doors to immortality.
So it's possible that there were many beings in the past who were arahants or pacceka Buddhas that didn't open the doors to immortality but gave teachings to the people they encountered since The Buddha himself gave teachings prior to opening the door to deathlessness.

'All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things,
    unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having
  fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher?
I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found. In the world with
  its devas, I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world;     I, the unexcelled teacher.  I,
  alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I,             unbound.' - Ariyapariyesana Sutta, MN 26

It seems to me like most mainstream forms of Christianity lead to the Brahma worlds or even perhaps the Pure abodes but not towards arahantship here and now, kind of similar to lay Buddhism.
In my opinion it is not good to speak about things unknown. Either Jesus was a higher being (since he had iddhi powers) or he was an arahant or Buddha.
Who actually knows who Jesus really was or what level he actually attained? Perhaps if I achieve higher states and limitless concentration I can finally discover the truth.

Jesus can not be considered Buddha because Jesus teaches love and acceptance of things as they are. Whereas Buddha teaches making self effort to avoid suffering.Buddha doesn’t accept the things as they are. Buddha preaches escape from the whole mass of suffering. Buddha also preaches that escape from suffering is not possible without being righteous. Buddha asks to develop compassion so that we can become fit for the ultimate goal Nirvana. Jesus gives heaven to those who believe in him. For Christianity the ultimate goal is heaven. Therefore it is inappropriate to consider Jesus as Buddha.

Ooh touchy subject.
According to my teacher, Jesus achieved a level of Awakening and opened up a lot of his chakras including his Throat Chakra (which is really hard to open).
He did not achieve Buddhahood or Arhatship but achieved powers that happen due to the 2nd training in Buddhism (concentration).
One of these is the nirmanakaya manifestation body which is why he could manifest a body even after he left his crucified body.
And you know.. you can't be too harsh to Jesus's teachings.
A lot of the religious teachings (including Islam) are wrong by the highest standards (Buddhism) but perhaps such Awakened "prophets" created such teachings to help improve people's karma (restrictions on behavior, the 1st training of Buddhism) and to help focus their minds.
Without such primitive religions, the warmongerers among us may have taken over and destroyed any chance for truly integrated understanding we have today.

Based on the gospels, Jesus was not a Buddha for the following reasons:

Jesus coveted another religion, as shown by the report of entering the Jewish temple and violently turning over the tables of the money-changers. Both the covetousness and violence is not the serene & perfect conduct of a Buddha.
Jesus used supernormal miracles to covert people, which is forbidden in Buddhism. The Buddha compared such behaviour to a prostitute exposing her vagina for a silver coin.
Jesus did explicit not teach the Four Noble Truths, Three Characteristics and Emptiness.
Jesus did not establish a Vinaya (Code of Conduct), which is why Christian clergy can engage on sexual misconduct, war & other crimes without expulsion.

I think that OP was asking something else. Are you a follower of Jesus, friend? Are you afraid your faith is a conflict? It is not. Buddhism is not exclusive to religion. Even though i would now say i am a buddhist if asked to describe my religion it is not because i am no longer a follower of christ . I was born to an ethnically christian family. I’ll never not be that in a sense. Buddhism describes how I process reality. So if anything buddhism made me a better christian than i ever was. Do you see? Following the path of the buddha makes all who attempt to follow noble for the undertaking regardless of where you come from. Dont concern yourself with what could or could not be a conflict just keep moving forward and one day it will be clearer. I consider jesus to be a buddha but i may be the only buddhist to admit that :p at the very least a bodhisattva


text:
What is the motivation for the list of 5 deadly sins?
I'm particularly interested in if there is any evidence in the sutras (or commentaries or anything old) that explains this peculiar list of transgressions (the Ānantarika-karma):

patricide
matricide
killing an arhat
injuring a Buddha
creating schism in the saṅgha.

1 & 2 & 3 are already against the first precept. 3 & 4 are hard to do even if you wanted to for lack of suitable arahats and Buddhas to kill or injure.
I've come to suspect that this is just a formula for expressing that schism is really bad. But this formula appears in many places, often without much other reference to schism. (for example ordination,

It is said that our current situation is the result of our karma collected over countless of lifetimes. That means that many of old-forgotten deeds sowed the seeds which ripened only after many lifetimes.
The 5 deadly sins are listed separately to highlight the fact the the results of those action will be immediate - killing a parent will definitely prevent one from reaching an arhat state in this life and the person will surely be reborn in a lower realm straight after death and will spend a long time over there. (see for example third  and fourth reference).
It has been already stated in one question that in order to attain enlightenment one does not need to purify all the bad Karma. Indeed, one of the greatest Yogis of all time, Milarepa, before finding his spiritual teacher killed 35 people and some sources even claim that all of them were his relatives. Regardless of those deeds, with the help of his guru he achieved full enlightenment in the same lifetime. If he had killed his parent though, this would have never taken place.

The people who have done the most for you are your parents. Also if you take a Buddha he has done lot of work in fulfilling the Paramis for our sake. Hence any actions against such a person from you have benefited would mean we should generate a lot of negativity.
Buddha and Arahat are enlightened hence their mind is pure and full of compassion to others. With regard to parents also this is the case when it comes to children. Hence going against someone who loves you and is compassionate towards you generates a lot of bad karma. In this case something we cannot overcome in this life time.
The Buddha has put in lot of effort to create the Sasana so doing anything incremental to this  generates a loot of bad karma as we are going against the will of one of the purest minds and decrementing the possibility of other getting benefit from the efforts of the Buddha. Like wise schism generates a lot of negativity.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is suspending judgement a way to avoid wrong view?
I came to this question from a comment made on an answer to a question about belief in rebirth. The comment read:
"A view that rebirth does not exist is a wrong view. You cannot realize Nibbana with this wrong view."
Now I wanted to reply that suspending judgement is a form of avoiding wrong view, but then I realized I'm not really sure; which bothered me. I suspend judgement about a lot of things even to the point of whether Buddhist enlightenment is real. So is suspending judgement proper, or does one on the Buddhist path eventually have to make choice?

Which tradition? Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese SGI, Theravada, modern secular Buddhism?

Theravada for myself, answers from other traditions might be interesting though

Related question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2/role-of-belief-in-buddhism

Vicicicca(doubt) is one of five mental factors that hinders progress in meditation.
Reserving judgment might sound like a neat trick. But Vicicicca is already there and your mind is already corrupted to start with. So the natural tendency of the mind is to lean towards doubt. Because most of your thoughts are tainted with ignorance. Accepting Nibbana with faith shuts off one major avenue for Vicicicca.
It would be hard to keep to any path without faith, unless you know by direct experience that the path is right and it leads to the intended destination. It's the same with Nibbana. If you have no faith in the path or the destination, you wouldn't even bother to follow it. Even if you do, the slightest setback can make you give up on it. But if you have faith, you'd be more inclined to look at your own shortcomings instead of doubting the path.
How many times we put our faith in regular people on a daily basis? When a doctor gives you medicine, even when your life's dependant on it, you don't do any in depth analysis of the drug before using it. When you buy food, you don't lab test it 1st to see if it's completely safe. You just go by the reputation and put your faith on the quality assurance certifications. You don't know any of those by direct knowledge. When you fly, you put your life in the hands of the pilot and the airliner. Will you still take the flight, if you can't make up your mind about the safety of the plane? :)
Compared to all that, having faith in Nibbana shouldn't be a hard thing to do. And it is also the wise thing to do since it keeps doubt at bay and prevents you from getting discouraged easily. It is the same case with believing in rebirth. For those who have trouble believing in that, the natural tendency of the mind is to lean towards nihilism. That is harmful for the progress in the path.

+1 for a well put faith based position. Could i maybe say that I think that suspension of opinion can exist side by side with a strong faith in the Dharma. I know of many people agnostic in some doctrinal matters who nevertheless exhibit huge commitment. I think faith grows as well when we practice - when things are proved in the crucible of our own experience. For me just practice and have faith that the method is effective - others have trodden the path before you successfully and others will do after. Sorry longer comment than I wanted - +1 for the answer. Thank you

But Nibbana & Rebirth are major components of the Dhamma. You don't need faith to accept only the parts you know to be the truth. Faith itself pushes you to the practice. When I was small, I didn't understand why killing is bad. But I was told that it causes bad Karma which leads to birth in hells. I had no problem taking it by faith and refraining from killing. The beauty of faith in buddhism is that you don't have to wait till you die to know most of the things you take by faith.

It is very interesting this. Whether rebirth is necessary for a Buddhist practitioner to believe in is something we were exploring here http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1456/is-a-belief-in-rebirth-a-necessity-for-buddhist-practice. I don't think you posted an answer. You should (IMHO) - as i think your view would be different to the majority and that would add to the question

Commented under the reply accepted as the answer.

Yes, I was reluctant to up vote this answer as it's a completely different side to my own position, but that of course has a place, both current answers represent a different and legitimate side.

I just wish I had enough points to downvote the answer. It may be a useful voicepiont for this person (and if so, I am thankful and rejoice for him), but if there were only one viewpoint needed, the many facets of Buddhism and the many religions in the world would be useful or needed. This person's answers always have this "my way or the highway" viewpoint. I don't think it's needed or even helpful to bring up for people who do not respond to that view.

Sankha Kulathantille is wise

I think suspending judgement on doctrinal issues that you find difficult is a totally legitimate way to practice Buddhism. The Buddha himself was no stranger to suspending judgement in the 12 unanswered questions. With regard to questions of doctrine the Buddha does present both sides when discoursing with the Kalamas in the Kalama Sutta

'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions
  rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the
  break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good
  destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he
  acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of
  actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look
  after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free
  from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

I've seen this taken as saying that the Buddha does not subscribe to rebirth. I feel that's a misinterpration but I do think it points to a willingness and acceptance that judgement can be suspended on these kinds of matters.
From a personal perspective I think it would be a great shame if someone didn't engage with the Dharma because they had difficulties with element(s) of doctrine. John Cottingham (not a Buddhist) is on an excellent podcast where he talks about engaging in the practice (praxis in his words) of religion before subscribing to all the doctrinal elements. I found that very helpful.
A Note
I appreciate I have probably answered the question in a very Western orientated way. I really do understand that there are other interpretations of Buddhism that have a different attitudes towards these matters as evident by the comment quoted in OP's questions. I think that these interpretations are obviously really valid and in many ways I wish I could just take them on. But coming from an atheist background I do have to suspend judgement otherwise I would never practice - and i think practice is the important thing really.

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


text:
Does Buddhism have a concept of blasphemy?
Considering this definition of blasphemy

the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a
  God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something
  considered sacred or inviolable

Does Buddhism have this kind of concept of blasphemy in the canonical texts and associated commentaries. I appreciate that there are now cultural sensitivities in certain countries around Buddhism and Buddhist iconography but I'm interested in references from the texts about this rather than modern interpretations.

duty toward monks seems to me to be natural as well as good karmically.

There are a few sources that suggest the importance of reverence for holy persons. It seems, however, that in the Buddhist context the sense of 'inviolability' usually attached to the idea of blasphemy in Western culture is not present in the same way. That is, all of the passages explicitly link the action to a negative result, either in future existences or, as in the final example, in the here and now; it is the fact that they cause suffering for oneself which makes them wrong.
'Reviling the Noble Ones' is part of a list of actions that are associated with rebirth in lower realms--i.e., animal, hungry ghost, and hell realms. The opposite, not reviling the Noble Ones, is listed as one of the elements associated with favorable results:

'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech &
  mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
  under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
  after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'

A few texts where this can be found are the Devaduta Sutta, the Potaliya Sutta (from which the above passage is taken), and the Sekha-patipada Sutta
There are also some texts that discuss the results of not being respectful:

"Here, student, some woman or man is obdurate and haughty; he does not
  pay homage to whom he should pay homage, or rise up for whom he should
  rise up, or give a seat to whom he should give a seat, or make way for
  whom he should make way, or worship him who should be worshipped, or
  respect him who should be respected, or revere him who should be
  revered, or honor him who should be honored. Due to having performed
  and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes
  to the human state, he is low-born wherever he is reborn. This is the
  way that leads to low birth, that is to say, to be obdurate and
  haughty, not to pay homage to whom he should pay homage, nor rise up
  for..., nor give a seat to..., nor make way for..., nor worship...,
  nor respect..., nor revere..., nor honor him who should be honored. -- from the Cula-dammavibhanga Sutta

Further, according to the Garava Sutta, even a Buddha would suffer because of not having appropriate reverence:

I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly
  Self-awakened, he was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara
  River, at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree. Then, while he was
  alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in his awareness:
  "One suffers if dwelling without reverence or deference. Now on what
  brahman or contemplative can I dwell in dependence, honoring and
  respecting him?" (Note: According to the text, the Buddha determines that there is no one more worthy/accomplished than he and so resolves upon revering the Dhamma.)

I hope this helps somewhat.

i think you've used the last quote in a misleading way.

How so, user329...?

i'm less sure reading it back now, but the buddha's thought that "one suffers if" turned out to not apply to him

Since posting the question I've read a verse in the Bodhicaryāvatāra that seems pertinent to this question. In the perfection of forbearance section when discussing anger (verse 64)

And my hatred to those who damage sacred images and stupas or abuse
  the true teaching is inappropriate, since the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas
  are not distressed

So Santideva (the author) explicitly says there is no blasphemy possible. Damage the sacred if you will - the Budhha is undisturbed.
I very much appreciate Adamokkha answer though and I think this goes side by side with it. There are many references to reverence and respect and yet at the same time one shouldn't be angry when this fails to happen - certainly in the view of the above quote.

This version of the Sermon at Benares (which was approximately the first time he spoke to people after he became the Buddha) suggests 'Yes':

ON seeing their old teacher approach, the five bhikkus agreed among themselves not to salute him, nor to address him as a master, but by his name only. "For," so they said, "he has broken his vow and has abandoned holiness. He is no bhikkhu, but Gotama, and Gotama has become a man who lives in abundance and indulges in the pleasures of worldliness." But when the Blessed One approached in a dignified manner, they involuntarily rose from their seats and greeted him in spite of their resolution. Still they called him by his name and addressed him as "friend Gotama."
When they had thus received the Blessed One, he said: "Do not call the Tathagata by his name nor address him as 'friend,' for he is the Buddha, the Holy One. The Buddha looks with a kind heart equally on all living beings, and they therefore call him 'Father.' To disrespect a father is wrong; to despise him, is wicked. The Tathagata, the Buddha continued, does not seek salvation in austerities, but neither does he for that reason indulge in worldly pleasures, nor live in abundance. The Tathagata has found the middle path.
"There are two extremes, O bhikkhus, which the man [etc.]

I don't know which tradition/sutta this version of the story is from (but it's one I've heard before/elsewhere). The associated commentary is that he corrects them, not for his own pride but for their own good: because it would harm them to not address him with proper respect.


text:
Do the same rules of Karma apply to animals?
Animals are sentient beings and therefore are also bound to the cycle of rebirth.
However, animals are far less intelligent than humans, and are certainly not smart enough to follow a particular code of conduct, or take decisions which are against their nature.
Does Karma and rebirth work differently for animals? Or are animals pretty much doomed to remain animals (or worse) because their nature, for instance, causes them to kill?

Karma is a universal law. It works the same for all beings. Whether you are a god, human or an animal, what matters is the strength of craving, aversion and ignorance.
Yes, if you sink below the level of humans, it's pretty difficult to come back. That's why the hells are called the great houses of Sansara.

That is exactly why we call it the "precious human life", because we can learn the dhamma and create a lot of merit. Animals don't have this opportunity. It is very hard to create good kamma as an animal... so use your precious human life wisely :)

The law of Karma is universal, i.e., applicable to all equally and applicable the same manner across time.
Humans are smart hence they can have the Right View but in the case of an animal this is not the case. Also an animal acts mainly by instinct which is Unprompted.
So the state of mind a hunting animat can have is:

One consciousness, unprompted (instinct), accompanied by pleasure (pleasure of a good meal), and connected with wrong view (lack of belief of repercussion and consequences of Karma or action)
One consciousness, unprompted (instinct), accompanied by indifference (pure instinctive reaction), and connected with wrong view (lack of belief of repercussion and consequences of Karma or action)

The above 2 mindd states generate more heavier Karma than the other.
Also animal will have following mental content which in humans have a choise to eliminate:

Ahirika - not ashamed of doing evil
Anottappa - no fear to do evil, i.e., fear of the consequences

Also in the animal kingdom fear, hunger, greed, territorial attachments, etc. is predominant which gives arise to unwholesome states and opportunity and intellect to do +ve karma is less.
This all point to that in the animal kingdom you are worse off and would end up accumulating more bad karma. Also if you are a carnivore feeding and survival needs killing as you simply cannot become herbivore, hence the nature of your birth will mean you tend to accumulate more bad karma.
Ref: Manual of Abhidhamma by Ven. Narada, Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Do lions create bad kamma for their next life when they kill?


text:
Relationship with bad parents (kamma and issues)
One of the main sources of bad kamma in Buddhism is doing wrong to your parents and not taking care of them. Buddha said it is very very hard to repay your parents, however how should one behave if he or she has bad parents? Maybe a parent that was an alcoholic or didn't take care of him properly, abandoned him, banned from his house or maybe stole from him? There are countless possibilities, what to do?

My father was an alcoholic, and I suffered a lot of grief from him - so I might as well try and answer this one.
The way my first teacher taught me about this (back when my father was still alive and I still encountered him a lot) the circumstances like this come from our karma, specifically from our attachment to decency and spirituality. The more we are attached to decency and to spirituality, the more we hate people who are indecent and lowly, the more we will have to face them. So the only way to stop this particular kind of painful circumstances, is to drop the attachment to decency and to spirituality, by no longer putting decency and spirituality above love and above existence itself. This was the teaching method my first teacher employed, very effective.
The way my last teacher taught me about this, long after my father passed away, is that in such cases freedom comes from forgiveness, understanding, the intent to stop the chain of suffering. We should understand that family issues are passed down the chain, although not necessarily in the same form. When father has certain issues, the child will have certain other issues - that will affect lives of their children and so on. Even my father's behavior was not his own, he inherited it from his childhood family - his father was a very violent guy, a commander of a penal military unit, a place where the criminal soldiers served. Behind a violent alcoholic there is often a hurt little boy. This is important to understand.
So these are two lessons from my Buddhism teachers, one is to let go of attachment to decency and spirituality and abandon hatred and aversion based on them, and two is to understand your parent's own background and suffering.
As to what to do, I think the best way to work with such people is as if you were working with a child. No matter how adult they look or pretend to be, if they act like that they are still immature, far from it. So working with them like you would with your own child, with tough love, compassionate but strict, seems to be the best course of action.

What a great answer!

attachment to decency reminds me of a (mahayana, I believe) story with the yet to be enlightened Bodhisatta, in which Mara was trying to prevent the Bodhisatta from experimenting or playing with Maras as part of his spiritual research.  as a child, I was always told that I’m not allowed to be angry, so I was never able to experientially understand anger and thus never able to grasp the uselessness and harmfulness of anger, until recently, more than 30 years later.

Possibly the words "expectations of" decency and spirituality are more accurate than the words "attachment to" decency and spirituality.

I'm translating a word my teacher used. Literally something like caughtupment, enhookment - hence attachment.

Even if your parents abandoned you the day you were born, you still owe them. The only way to repay them fully is to make them understand the Dhamma. If your parents are alcoholic, take them for rehab. If they steal money, don't keep money where they can find. Likewise, address each issue accordingly. Advice them with the Dhamma and show them the right path without getting angry.

What if this parent is perfect in every way, except that this parent is always angry and not nice to deal with? :-)

Practice Metta towards him or her. Avoid confrontations. Use kind words.

As per AN 2.31-32: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.031.than.html

There is a aspect of Buddhism which actually views difficult people (including parents) as being helpful and we should be grateful to them. Forbearance (kṣānti) is one of the six perfections. To illustrate let me quote from the Bodhicaryāvatāra, Perfection of Forebearance (verse 107)

Therefore, since he helps me on the path to Awakening, I should long
  for an enemy like a treasure discovered in the home, acquired without
  effort.

So we should be grateful to difficult people even if they are, well, difficult.
But realistically we aren't all able to do this, certainly not in the initial stages of practice. Also difficult relationships with parents particularly colour our lives and are difficult to get past. When I have had difficult relationships (not with parents admittedly) then sometimes the only thing to do is take yourself out of that situation until such time as you are better able to cope positively with it - and if that time never comes well at last you are out of that situation and maybe better able to practice positively generally.
Also Buddhist teachers like Jack Kornfield actively recommend counselling to go alongside Buddhist practice and the two work side by side. This article illustrates Jack Kornfield's position which I'll quote a brief section

There are many areas of growth (grief and other unfinished business,
  communication and maturing of relationships, sexuality and intimacy,
  career and work issues, certain fears and phobias, early wounds, and
  more) where good Western therapy is on the whole much quicker and more
  successful than meditation.

However bear in mind that....

Does this mean we should trade meditation for psychotherapy? Not at
  all. Therapy isn't the solution either.

In my opinion, when things come up in meditation practice, why not use every facility that is available to you to come to terms with it? I appreciate might be a controversial view. People are obviously welcome to disagree with.

Bad parents cannot be repaid for whatever good they did if they cannot appreciate & accept goodness. Some parents are stubborn like this. The Pali suttas (Iti 77) say there are bad parents with good children. Not everyone can repay their parents as described in the Pali suttas. This teaching about repaying parents is only an 'ideal' rather than an 'absolute'. The 'absolute' is realising non-attachment or the four noble truths. If moral teachings of Buddhism are causing anxiety & worry, this is a mishandling of Dhamma.

This body was so malnourished at birth because my mother used pregnancy as a way of LOSING weight -- her dress size was more important than my bones and nerves -- very nearly the neuro tube did not close. This was established by scientific forensic analysis of my bone matrix. My entire life, my mother was cruel.  Violent in the extreme.  Lied bout my behavior to my father so I would be beaten.  My father every day would stare into my eyes for a rectio. Of sorrow or hurt when I was beaten for not working hard enough to please my mother. --and beat me extra hard if there was as much as one emotion.
Then, when my mother inherited 1.1 million dollars -- I had 2,000 in the whole world, was almost the best student in nursing school, but I developed a massive disc extrusion in the base of my spine so that I was urinaring in my pants and very bad problem controlling bladder. You know what this alleged mother did when I asked her for help? The ONE time I asked her for anything -- she laughed at me and said, GEE I WONDER EHAT YOU WILL DO NOW, I had no health insurance at the time. PS in my childhood, I meditated constantly and had buddhist insight about greed, not clinging to wealth and LIVED for compassion.  Any time I saw suffering, I wanted to alleviate it.  THEN when my parents found this out about me is when I was not allowed to leave the house, to show compassion for anyone except my mother, no got beaten.  I used to cry bitterly when a bird was injured!!  When teased by children, I never once for angry.  My karma to be born to this???
Hm,... No exaggeration:  some family friend called me two weeks before she died.  We lost touch 10 years ago.  She said to me of all the people on earth she met, she never met a purer more loving soul.  I cried like a child to hear this.  One of the only nice words spoken of this human being by someone who saw my compassion when my parents were at work killing me.  I wanted to practice buddhism but I will not accept some more blame when I already paid for my meals, flesh and life with my own flesh.  My nervous system broke -- all the nerves in the lumbar spine got glued together because this person who is allegedly a mother, with 1.1 million dollars could not give 25k for surgery to me... In her words, my talent to be a nurse --I was soooo loving too my old patients-- and my nerves were NOT a good investment for her. Ok?  I wish buddha were alive to hear this story.
Sorry for the typos but Ipad has a mind of it's own.
I tell myself anyway because of physical pain, I am not the body, not the mind, and I am terrified of ever encountering these people again.  I am now almost allergic to violence and have no idea how to cope with living on a planet of warfare and starvation. My mother has yet to offer me help, my father passed away, and my mothers sisters are mostly sociopaths too -- they LOVE seeing others suffer. I cannot imagine that Hitler was very different-- maybe next lifetime these people will build concentration camps because the meanness to sick people, to people of color, to poor people is like a horror movie.
My karma?   I don't know but i have to figure out how to NEVER see these so-called people again.  Strangers have come to me and commented on my mothers violence as recently as four years ago-- so believe me, do no him means you walk away. You realizes when you are the tool of aggression in someone else's hands -- how they try to destroy all the time innocent happy people -- and you say I am sorry.  Get help.  I am never going back.  And if I am angry, it would be maybe a good thing -- maybe there is karma for being a doormat, too. I would love dhamma advice-- poor, and trying very hard to generate new spine, bones, and nerves.
Thank you if you read this long message.
Also living on 4 dollars a day so no psychologist or medical care.  Doing a lot of Samatha meditation.  And I try very hard to reach the compassion I had on childhood... That pure lovingkindness... My heart was the size of the universe...so deep.  So sad for the sick and dying as a child.  I think karma is not real. I think the mentally ill ones get sicker with each lifetime.  And the kind ones always get hurt and abused.  Like Christ and so many other monks and persons of faith getting violently killed by power for power. When I was six I knew my parents were shallow and too stupid to appreciate their vast blessings of health.  And I even tried to grow up extra fast so they couldn't kill me.  I hope everyone understands how many parents are monsters.  And that children get help by strangers before they get broken.
Thank you for any comments on dharma I might follow. No sangha nearby, but I do read the sutta daily! And I have version to violence... Does that make problems for me as a matter of practice??  Should we all love violence?  Getting tired of this sick world. Often I can't wait to die. I hope it is with a bird chirping nearby. I am nearly done with humanity.

Hello Christine. I tried to clean up typos and added some line-spacing to increase readability. I'm sorry to hear what happened to you. I don't know what to do with your answer as it does not answer the question and at the same time it asks new questions. So I will let it stay here. You might want to ask a question on the main page about your practice and what teachings can be of help to you. May you be well and happy and free from suffering.

When you are living together, in harmony and without contention, a certain person might do something wrong or transgress.  Concerning this, you should not hasten to reproof.  The person should be examined.  In correcting him you might think: ‘I won’t get annoyed, nor will he, for he is without irritation and anger, he is quick to see and easy to convince.
I have the power to raise this person from the unskillful and establish him in the skillful.’ If you think this then it is right to speak.  If you think: ‘I won’t get annoyed but he will, for he is irritable, angry, slow to see but easy to convince.  I have the power to raise this person from the unskillful and establish him in the skillful.  His annoyance is but a small thing, the great thing is that I will be able to establish him in the skilled.’ If you think this then it is right to speak.
If you think: ‘I will get annoyed but he won’t, for he is not prone to irritability or anger, he is quick to see but difficult to convince.  But I have the power to raise this person from the unskillful and establish him in the skillful.  My annoyance is but a small thing, the great thing is that I will be able to establish him in the skilled.’ If you think this then it is right to speak.  If you think: ‘I will get annoyed and so will he, for he is irritable, angry, slow to see and hard to convince.  But still, I have the power to raise this person from the unskillful and establish him in the skillful.
My annoyance is but a small thing, the great thing is that I will be able to establish him in the skilled.’ If you think this then it is right to speak.  However, if you think: ‘I will get annoyed and so will he, for he is irritable, angry, slow to see and difficult to convince, and I don’t think I have the power to raise him from the unskillful and establish him in the skillful.’ Then in this case have equanimity towards that person.
-- M.II,241

what is M.II,241 ?

Here's another translation of it: https://suttacentral.net/en/mn103

Repaying the kindness of parents applies when acts of kindness has been done.
When the Buddha spoke about this, he was speaking in a general case, i.e. most parents have been very kind, which means they have done acts of kindness, like take care of children, bear them, love them unconditionally. However, nothing has inherent existence, this means that parents are not, by their nature of being parents, people who have done such acts of kindness - some parents are cruel, and may do very few or no acts of kindness towards their children.
In this case, we should take the Buddha's advice on similar "friends":
"The friend who is all take,
The friend of empty words,
The friend full of flattery,
And the reckless friend;
These four are not friends, but enemies;
The wise understand this
And keep them at a distance
As they would a dangerous path." (DN31)
Likewise, we can show compassion to a parent, and try to guide them to the Dharma, but if their karma is clearly not ripe, they may not be worth the effort, "A fool can attend on a wise man even for whole his life,
he will not understand the Dharma, like a spoon does not know the taste of the soup." (Dhp. 64).
Anyone who has experience with, for instance, a "reckless" parent, who may be an alcoholic, knows that you cannot just "take them to rehab" and take care of them - they can only help themselves. The best thing you can do is keep a distance. If this isn't possible, and you are still staying at home, ideally you take the advice of Crab Bucket, and practice patience, but try to avoid them when they are drunk and try to stay pleasant, but distant, unless they become more agreeable.
There is a tendency for some people to want to be super heroes, but we also have to be realistic. The Buddha was realistic too, that's why he simply recognised that sometimes we just have to stay away from such people.

You can refer site on net "pure dhamma" where there are post related to suttas of buddha about gandhaba and rebirth . I also knew from it that .at death the mental body(gandhabba ) leaves the physical body and just waits for another womb of human,deva,animal,or hell etc  may be for years or centuries. He enters the womb of that mother whose gathi matches to that of you. So thanks to the mother who possessed the gati matching to you. you have not mentioned your age, but still there is enough time to practice buddhism. choose right path and be on journey. no need to fear for violence.

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


text:
When did Vasubandhu, the teacher of Dignāga, live?
Vasubandhu is known to be the teacher of Dignāga. When did he live? What are the sources that say so?

4th century according to wikipedia. I'm going to guess this is done however historians date things, by mentions of contemporaries, dates written on documents, etc.

The problem is that in the oldest known source (Paramartha's "Life of Vasubandhu", compiled around 550 CE) conflicting dates are mentioned. This has lead to several different theories about the exact dates that mark Vasubandhu's life.
According to Wikipedia Vasubandhu lived in the 4th century CE. For this information they refer to this essay where it says:

it is known that he was a contemporary of Emperor Candragupta I. Ramashankae Tripathi, History of Ancient India (Delhi 1942), gives the dates 320 to circa 335 AD for the reign of Candragupta I, and c. 335-375 for that of his militant successor Samudragupta. This situates the life of our Vasubandhu between 290 and 370 AD.

However in 1951 Erich Frauwallner, a professor in Buddhism, wrote an article called "On the date of the Buddhist master of the law Vasubandhu" in which he posted a theory that there were 2 Vasubandhus;

the first Vasubandhu was the co-founder of the Yogācāra school and lived  from 320-380 CE,
and a second Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharma-kośa, who lived from 400-480 CE.

This view has been criticized and doesn't seem to be widely accepted. More info in these papers:

Dan Lusthaus - What is and isn't Yogacara (against the two Vasubandhu-theory)

Since the progression and development of his thought, however, is so strikingly evident in these works, and the similarity of vocabulary and style of argument so apparent across the texts, the theory of Two Vasubandhus has little merit.

Marek Mejor's - The problem of the two Vasubandhus reconsidered (in favor of the two Vasubandhu-theory)


text:
What is the Buddhist perception of injustice, considering the law of Karma?
Considering the notion of our future being the result of our actions in the past, is there any room for the concept of unfairness in Buddhist philosophy? What is the right/skillful view one should take when witnessing suffering in a loved one?
From my understanding, one should be compassionate towards the person and keep a calm mind as much as possible, but at the same time I find discomforting the idea that somehow, the present condition of a loved one has to do with his/her past actions, specially when considering more extreme examples of suffering without any apparent reason (e.g. childhood traumatic events, such as sexual abuse).

It's certainly been seen as a difficult question for Buddhists. I've heard it termed the Glenn Hoddle question after an ex-footballer used karma type arguments to explain disability - to quote

You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and
  half-decent brains. Some  people have not been born like that for a
  reason. The karma is working from another lifetime

He was sacked as England coach. However it is a difficult question and I will attempt a decent answer
Karma isn't cause and effect
Karma isn't just cause and effect - there is more going on. To quote the Sivaka Sutra

Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view
  that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or
  neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,'
  then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted
  as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part
  of these ascetics and brahmans.

It's not as if someone lies in one life then is reborn as with a disability in the next. Sometimes the fruits of karma (action) are immediate, sometimes they are delayed, sometimes the fruits don't come to pass at all.
There is more going on than Karma
Also in Buddhism there is the concept of Niyamas which explains outcome dependant origination (the underpinning of reality). These being

kamma niyama: ("action") consequences of one's actions
utu niyama: ("time, season") seasonal changes and climate, law of non-living matter
bīja niyama: ("seed") laws of heredity
citta niyama:("mind") will of mind
dhamma niyama: ("law") nature's tendency to perfect

The above list is taken from here. So karma would only explain a fraction of someones present conditions.
Karma isn't blame
I guess the other thing to point out is that there is no concept of blame in any of this. The audio here is very interesting - a Buddhist nun discusses this exact issue with someone with seeing difficulties.
Even if someone's unfortunate circumstances were caused directly by their actions (which is no means as simple as that) then this wouldn't stop us feeling compassion for them. This would be true in this life or the next. If someone was run over because they didn't look both ways before crossing the road then it is a normal human response to feel compassion for them - Buddhist or not.
As I say though a difficult and interesting question. I hope that helps some.

Karma is a process of causes and effect. But it isn't the only one.

Future is the result of our actions in the past, present, future and the other 4 Niyama Dhammas.
Was there any room for the concept of unfairness when the Tsunami killed about 150,000 people in 2004? Was there any room for the concept of unfairness for all those kids born deformed after Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombing? Is there any room for fairness when earthquakes kill thousands of people? Just like that, Karma is also a law of nature. Is it fair to get burnt, if a kid puts his hand in the fire, not knowing it burns? Is it fair to get sick when mosquitoes bite you? The concept of fairness or unfairness doesn't have anything to do with the laws of nature.
Past Karma is most definitely a cause for child rape. But nothing happens by a single cause. Everything has multiple causes.
Nature or life is fair in only one way, i.e. if the right causes are present, it gives you the appropriate result.

According to Buddhism, kamma and its consequences (vipaka) may not happen at the same time or even in the same life, it is hard to predict when it will create its results because it depends on other conditions, that is why people can be born with serious problems.
For example: Imagine a murderer, he creates terrible kamma, but if he lives with several bodyguards he may protect himself from being murdered, this kamma will not rippen in this life because there is cause but there are no conditions, so this kamma will go on into the next life (probably in a much worse plane)
If it helps: When someone is facing a problem at least think that he or she is puryfing some bad kamma, at least this kamma will be gone and if the person has created merit, good things are on his way!


text:
Do we need to believe in Buddhist stories to be a real Buddhist?
Some suttas and the dhammapada contain stories with things not very easy to verify, such as people flying, living 8.000 years, teletransportation, etc.
Some of those are related to the psychic powers of the Buddha and that is easier to believe as he was an enlightened being; however some are not related to that.
Buddha always encouraged us to verify and contemplate things. Will having doubt about Buddhist stories and legends interfere with Buddhist practice?

Relative to which tradition? Secular Buddhism is a thing and it dispenses with the unverifiable stories. For the rest I'd have to check on a case by case basis. For example, some monks in the Shingon tradition took all that stuff pretty literally, Dogen in the Zen tradition was pretty skeptical for his time, and so on.

I agree that it changes from tradition to tradition, but my point is: These stories have been told from generation to generation, is there any chance that at some point people exagerated a little bit? I dont know. Most of those stories are on suttas and dhammapada, so are present in both mahayana and theravada traditions.

The questions that work best on a stack exchange site are the ones that have answer that you could hypothetically mark as an answer. As written, and without reference to any particular tradition this is a survey/discussion question. If you ask me, dispense with the stories, there are other more interesting parts to the religion. But I'm just a random opinion and enough of those just creates noise.

I submitted an edit to (hopefully) help the question to fit into the structured Q & A format better. Please feel free to reject changes if they lose too much of your original intent.

thanks friends, I will try to "fit" the question, specially the future ones, buddhism is not so simple and most of the subjects have many different interpretations, therefore I think it is ok for one person to find a question clear and other to find it a bit unclear. Regarding the format for Q&A I think we can have a standard which I will try my best to fit :)

You should not believe all the stories to become a Buddhist dear friend. Instead you should believe Noble Eightfold Path and taking refuge in the triple Gems (Load Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha). Taking refuge doesn't mean that the person has to pray for them or looking forward until they do something for you. We have to believe Lord Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha then we have to follow the path which is showed by them. They are guides and helpers so followers have to follow the path.
If someone loose their courage to follow the path due to the stories that is the best enmity one can do for him/her self. First clarify everything about Noble Eightfold Path and follow it. Then when you gaining wisdom due to the follower, you will be able to identify whether the stories are true or false.
when talking about teleportation, we are in a era of quantum teleportation. even now with the existing technology we can perform teleportation on quantum particles like photons. but the problem is on the communication channels. if we divide our body into quantum particles and begin to teleport them, it will take millions of years to complete. If scientists develop a mechanism to build high speed communication channel with using quantum entanglement, we will have a teleportation era in near future. So don't categorize stories just as fairy tails or believe at once. Remember stories and follow the path then you will find facts do decide.

Good point on the noble eightfold path! Good answer, I agree that what is more important is to put the teachings into practice, it is just that some stories are not easy to verify and may look very strange specilly for beginners, so I was wondering how to explain that for beginners. Thanks, good answer

It is great pleasure to help you my dear friend. I know it is very hard to find the truth in this world. At the beginning I was also confused. But when reading, best way which I found was compare new facts when there is contradiction. So we have to refuse some points and accept others. But if you need to trust, there is no other option except practical implementation. Obviously there are no harm in them. Feel the relaxation of Dhamma with practice. All the best!

A real Buddhist is a person who takes refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Dhammapada, along with it's stories are a part of the Dhamma. So if you reject the stories and still claim to be a Buddhist, you are essentially saying that you don't accept those stories as a part of the Dhamma. But it's a bad practice for a person to start deciding what parts of the Tipitaka or commentaries belong to the Dhamma. Especially someone who's neither enlightened nor omniscient. Because that habit can leak into much more important teachings as well. Like questioning if there's rebirth or Nibbana. Because you don't yet know them by direct knowledge, just like psychic powers. So you are taking them on faith.
There's a way to attain psychic powers and it's explained in the text. Just like the way to attain Nibbana. So why not take psychic powers on faith too? It's not like you can disprove them.
Vicicicca(doubt) is one of five hindrances obstructing the path. You are rejecting the stories because of your Vicicicca. Not because of your direct understanding that the stories are false. So you are actually empowering a mental state which is harmful to the path instead of gaining any real knowledge about the authenticity of the stories. On the other hand, if you can simply accept them on faith, Vicicicca has little room to enter your mind. That'll also make you less distracted when you listen to the Dhammapada.

Faith is for fools and advanced practitioners. That sort of practice is called "guru yoga" in Tibetan Buddhism. There they require you be an advanced practitioner before initiating you into that practice. And, in the past for the monastics, the guru then was responsible to provide food, shelter, and teachings for the person taking the vow. There is nothing wrong with being a "fool" for a particular religion (or more probably a particular teacher) but,if one is going to do that, one had better make sure that one is placing one's faith in the right teacher. I don't find "blind faith" useful in my practice. If Buddhism has truth (as I think it does), I don't think it needs its practitioners to practice blind faith. If blind faith is necessary, I will probably wander off somewhere else.
Trust is built on verifiable statements or personal experience. The "Western" students seem to respond better to examples of holiness, rather than descriptions of holiness. (If this method really works, then there ought to be examples existing today. And there are. Just really hard to find, for some reason.) Actual meditation practice, like fitness, seems to follow the "you get out of it what you put into it" policy. "Personal Experience" is only applicable to the one having the experience, but is no less useful. Ultimately, it's all about what works for you. Buddhism has quite a few traditions (and sub-schools). One of them may be for you.

Thanks, I have been in 3 different schools and I made a decision which one to follow, however all schools accept the stories because they are part of the core material of buddhism, I can believe in some of them, but others really require a lot of faith, so I wonder: Maybe it is just the way it has been written, those stories came from generation to generation 2.500 years ago, maybe some misinterpretation or some extrapolation happened here and there and the story became more mystical... I dont know


text:
Does any modern Buddhist tradition use a Gregorian holiday schedule?
Have any modern Buddhist organization adopted the Gregorian calendar for celebrating Buddhist holidays?
Last time I tried to find something simple as Vesak or some of the other common Buddhist Holiday's, they are celebrated on a lunar calendar and differ from country to country, ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesak#Dates_of_observance
I'm not affiliated with any particular organized sangha, so I have two challenges-- deciding which holidays to celebrate, and even after that, there isn't a lot of agreement on how to calculate the day.

Japanese tradition holidays are very different. But for Vesak, you just need the full moon day in May. One of those calendars that shows the moon phases is useful.

You could try the FPMT Dharma calendar: "http://fpmt.org/media/resources/dharma-dates/" Astrology is rather big in Buddhism, but I don't tend to follow it as I never did previously growing up. It does help, I reckon, to show what the upcoming religious significant dates might be.

To MatthewMartin, I think your web site (http://brahmanetproject.wakayos.com/) comment system is broken (or I am not clever enough to login to it). It asks me for password after signing in via Facebook but there is nowhere to create or get a password. Thought you should know. Thanks.

I've had a look around and I can't see actual Buddhist holidays that follow a Gregorian calendar. They all seem to shift around with lunar cycles. The Thai national calendar is a renumbered Gregorian calendar but the Buddhist festivals within that are lunar
However I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community in the UK and we have over a number of years celebrated 'Gregorian' festivals. For instance we have a lovely Buddhist ritual on winter solstice and then again on New Years Eve. I'm not sure if this quite answers your question and I appreciate that this isn't traditional or even standard but I think it's interesting that we are repurposing these days as Buddhist festivals just as Christians repurposed pagan festivals for Christmas and Easter.
So perhaps there are no Gregorian festivals (that I know of) right now but 'Western' Buddhist communities will be busily repurposing existing Gregorian festivals just like we are. Just a thought really.

I concur. I remember a poorly thought out radio article where the journalist checked in with each world religion to see how they celebrate Christmas (as if a religion necessarily entails a major winter holiday). I've seen photos of Buddhists in Hawaii who repurposed Bodhi Day (Dec 8) as a time to put out Buddhist themed light displays on their lawn. Ref http://familydharma.pulelehuadesign.com/bodhi.htm


text:
Is there any significance to shaving the head?
I have noticed when I look at Buddhists, or Buddhist monks, that they have shaved heads. Is there any significance to that?  If so, then is it an obligation for Buddhists, or at least Buddhist monks to shave their heads?

it is interesting to note that once you become enlightened you don't worry about such small things. Although Siddhartha cut his hair, Buddha kept long hair himself.

The Buddha did not keep long hair. :) actually contrary to the images of the Buddha that we see today, the Sutta seem to indicate that the Buddha had a shaven head like the other Bhikkhu.

@مجاهد May my question would help you also What are benefits of being bald?

First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns.
In most Buddhist traditions it is a custom/rule that when you become a monk or nun (a.k.a. Bhikkhu) you have to shave your head.
There are also monastic rules that say that a Bhikkhu is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or time.

The hair of the head should not be worn long. It should be shaved at least every two months or when the hair has grown to a length of two fingerbreadths — whichever occurs first, says the Commentary.
The beard should not be grown long, although — unlike the hair of the head — there is no explicit maximum length, unless the two month/two fingerbreadth rule is meant to apply here as well.

(source: page 14 and 15 of the Buddhist Monastic Code II)
Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist:

One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard. Bhikkus show their commitment by doing the same.

Shaving our head symbolizes cutting off confusion, hostility, and attachment (source)

Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day.

Hygienic reasons

By looking less attractive, celibacy (another monastic rule) becomes easier (at least that's what this author claims, I'm not sure about the validity of this myself).

It also would have been a stark contrast to the ascetics of the day with their long, tangled hair; maybe meaningful or maybe not. :)

@Robin111 I settled on the same explanation. Because many ascetics of the day wore dreads, a neatly shaved head was a statement of discipline and moderation.

I believe they shave their heads because they don't want to have attachments to the body or self image. They also don't use cosmetics, perfumes and so on... This is a very old practice, including the robes they wear, since the time of the Buddha
Lay people don't have to do it, only monks.

One reason with hair is you can use it for beautification like having a hair style. Monks are not allowed to use mirrors or look at once face unless it is for medical reasons or contemplating of aging and impermanence.
Long hair was the style many people had during Buddha's time some this prevents any styling and beautification.

It is an act of renunciation of the beauty or attractiveness of the human body or human appearance (Four Foundations of Mindfulness). Once a person sees and understands the suffering caused by societies obsession towards outer perfection (whatever that is) then shaving ones head is not a big deal!!
The act of shaving ones head is very profound and liberating. It's a statement made by the individual. that they no longer wish to be part of such worldly ignorance!!
Metta.

(I can't comment on this "...it is interesting to note that once you become enlightened you don't worry about such small things. Although Siddhartha cut his hair, Buddha kept long hair himself. – TheDarkKnightRules Nov 15 '14 at 9:48..." because of some silly rules of this website. But I would like to clear up a point that 'Buddha kept long hair himself.')
In vasala sutta (story heard) in the Tipitaka, a brahman said this to the Buddha "“tatreva, muṇḍaka; tatreva, samaṇaka; tatreva, vasalaka tiṭṭhāhī”ti.
(Stop right there shaven-head, stop right there monk, stop...)
The Pali word "muṇḍaka" means "a shaveling; shaven-headed".
There we have it. The Buddha had his head shaven too. No exception for Himself!

There's a similar answer here which quotes an article saying, "the core canon explicitly describes the Buddha as a bald-shaven man".

Another reason is the connection to the Divine. Hair stop energy moving, and in meditation practices they need to connect the Sahasrara as best as possible with the Divine, thus shaving the head allows for better "connection". There are also specific rituals and procedures for that part of the body that take place after death, but that's another story.

Great answer related to shaved heads, long hair, beards, etc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkTheoMwI7c

"Why Yogis and Swamis have long hair and beards?" by Sadhguru doesn't really answer this question, or does it? About why Buddhist monks shave their heads?