text:
Is no soul doctrine (there is no eternal soul) supported in Buddhist suttas?
"The purification of one's own mind/will (citta); this is the Doctrine
of the Buddha" [DN 2.49]
"How is it that one is called a 'Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind/will
(citta) is purified (visuddham)...such is how one is deemed a
'Buddha'." [MN 2.144]
[DN 2.157] "Gotama who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently
quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind
(citta) limitless (Brahman) he no longer bears sensations;
illumined and unbound (nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu)
liberated."
[SN 3.45] "The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from
defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound (parinirvana)."
"The Soul is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341]
"I leave you now, having made my Soul the refuge (saranamatta) DN 2.120
"The Self (atman) as refuge, with nary another as refuge" DN 2.100
[KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”
“the body cannot pass that gate to fare beyond,..only the Soul (The Self)” -Udana
“Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will/spirit (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his citta (nous/spirit/mind) within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is the most excellent!” [MN 1.436]
[MN 1.511] “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness.”
SN 1.96 “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”
[SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])'”

dear @atman, welcome back to the site. Your questions are very valid and valuable - and I see where they come from, but please please please try to stay within the format of this web site. Do not post multiple takes on the same basic question. Do not post two-page-long questions. Do not post questions that are actually polemical statements. Do not post responses to answers as your own answers to your own questions.  And so on and so forth. Please be nice and we will try to address your (really, one) question the best we can. Thank you.

Buddha taught to only teach Dhamma to those who want it & listen attentively. Any answers provided should only be for the benefit of Buddhists so they can learn how to refute those of other sects.

I searched for SN 3.45 and it's completely non-existent. The quotes that are claimed to be from DN 2 are also not there. SN 3 only has 25 suttas. Similarly there's no MN 1.436 and no MN 1.511. The mentioned quotes are not even in MN 1.  All your verses are either fabricated or mistranslated. This question should be downvoted as it presents fake verses for polemical reasons.

You don't understand the Buddha, do you... The moment you speak of a "soul", you're done, lost your way to nirvana.
Buddhism is all about "deconstructing" the -words-, thus demolishing all virtual dichotomies, ending the conceptual imputation. Why? Because it is a neutral monism!

"The purification of one's own mind (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha" [DN 2.49]

Yes.

"How is it that one is called a 'Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)...such is how one is deemed a
  'Buddha'." [MN 2.144]

Yes.

[DN 2.157] "Gotama who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind
  (citta) limitless he no longer bears sensations; illumined
  and unbound (nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu)
  liberated."

Yes although there is a flaw in this translation about "sensations".

[SN 3.45] "The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in
  fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So
  being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound (parinirvana)."

No.

"The Soul is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341]

No.

"I leave you now, having made my Soul the refuge (saranamatta) DN 2.120

No. The word here is 'self' used in conventional language.

"The Self (atman) as refuge, with nary another as refuge" DN 2.100

No. The word here is 'self' used in conventional language.

[KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”

No.

“the body cannot pass that gate to fare beyond,..only the Soul (The Self)” -Udana

No.

“Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without
  permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a
  pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as
  Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will/spirit (citta,
  Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his citta
  (nous/spirit/mind) within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya).
  This is tranquility; this is that which is the most excellent!” [MN
  1.436]

SN 12.61 states citta, mano & vinnana have the same impermanent nature.

[MN 1.511] “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto
  form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for
  when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when
  grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I
  have been grasping onto consciousness.”

SN 12.61 states citta, mano & vinnana have the same impermanent nature.

SN 1.96 “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”

The nihilist believes in "self" or "soul". Refer to DN 1 & Iti 49.

*[SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all
  is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of
  annihilationism])'”

The above quote is incomplete.
The nihilist believes in "self" or "soul". Refer to DN 1 & Iti 49.
MN 115 states everything whatsever is an element (dhatu) in Buddhism.


text:
Is there are difference between 'self' & 'soul' in Buddhism?
A core teaching of Buddhism is 'anatta' or 'not-self'.
Does the word 'atta' refer to both 'self' & 'soul' or can these two ideas (self & soul) be different in Buddhism to give them different meanings?
In other words, are the ideas 'self' & 'soul' (be they used in Buddhism or non-Buddhism) necessarily synonymous in Buddhism?

What is the goal of asking this question? What is it that you are trying to know? It would help if you put references / quotes about Soul in your question, as I am unaware of any in Buddhist writing.

From as far as I could contemplate after reading some of the sutras and articles, the "self" and "soul" are different. In Buddhism, "self" is the result of polluted "manas-vijñāna"; while soul is a pure hypothesis resulted from the intellect (a theorem, conjecture in some religious systems).
As "self" is resulted from polluted "manas-vijñāna" the 7th vijñāna, it is real but it is not-true. Thus causes the karma and birth/death built upon this not-true "self", the polluted manas-vijñāna. Thus has the Buddhist teaching of not-self (anatta?) for end of suffering. However it is real since it produced effects. Like a dream is real when one is in the dream and all the dream scenes are with impacts, but a dream is not true when one awaken and realized (enlightenment). (眼識visual、耳識audio、鼻識nasal、舌識taste、身識touch（以上合稱五識these are the 5 vijñāna）、6.意識consciousness/intellect、7.末那識manas-vijñāna 及 8.阿賴耶識ādāna-vijñāna.)
I got the inspiration from reading this:

「浩浩三藏不可窮，淵深七浪境為風。受薰持種根身器，去後來先作主公。」 ── 玄奘法師 (Bhikkhu Xuanzang 602AD-664AD wikipedia)

Unfortunately I don't read or write Pali thus not sure if this is acceptable since the question tagged "pali, pali-canon". I try to offer what I know.
Do an experiment: If one uses a knife to cut himSELF, will his "self" feel the pain (definitely yes); or, will his "soul" feel the pain (probably not).

I asked the question, which must be tagged. The tag is not relevant to the question . Your answer was perfect. I have chosen it as the best answer. Thank you.

You tagged this question pali.
The PTS dictionary does gives two meanings:

The soul as postulated in etc.
Oneself, himself, yourself. etc.

There is for example a chapter of the Dhammapada called Attavagga, whose verses include the word; for example:

Attana hi katam etc.
Verse 165: By oneself indeed is evil done and by oneself is one defiled; by oneself is evil not done and by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend entirely on oneself; no one can purify another.

You could try to read/understand this as, "By the soul indeed is evil done", to see whether that makes more sense to you; but the conventional translation of it is, "By oneself is...".

I'm not sure that I should try to grasp this topic, for example because of the warning in the Sabbasava Sutta that questions like "what am I?" will result in various types of "views of self", a "thicket of views", a fetter -- and because I think it's an intellectual idea, which may be associated with "Mara".

According to the introduction of Piya Tan's Is There a Soul? one of the principle attributes of the alleged or Brahmanistic soul is that it's "eternal". I guess that "eternal" might contradict another of of the "three characteristics", i.e. impermanence.
I'm told that there is such a thing (a state) as nirvana and maybe timelessness; but I think that those are not maybe associated with a personal "self".

I agree that this has the makings of a Vexing Question. I have never read the word 'soul' being defined in Buddhism. So far as I know, it does not exist, is not defined or spoken of.

"Does the word 'atta' refer to both 'self' & 'soul' or can these two ideas (self & soul) be different in Buddhism to give them different meanings?"
It seems atta was never directly defined in the texts. While non-canonical texts help inform it's translation, it's meaning is drawn from context and seems to range from simple "oneself" (reflexive pronoun) to something that is "unchanging / non-suffering / under one's control". The latter meaning is drawn from dialogues such as:

“Bhikkhus, form is anicca. What is anicca is dukkha. What is dukkha is anattā.
-- SN 22.15

and

“Bhikkhus, form is anatta. For if, bhikkhus, form were attā, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
-- SN 22.59

Then, whether the second meaning can be translated as 'soul' or not, to me seems to be a a matter of 'soul' being understood to embody the characteristics of atta (e.g. from above: non-affliction, something we have power over as in "let it be thus / let it not be thus").
However, it may be misleading to translate this term as the upanishadic "universal soul". For a discussion of this term (though a little old, not sure if dated), see Vedanta and Buddhism
A Comparative Study.

Thank you. You appear to have pointed out 'atta' can merely be simply a "reflex pronoun", i.e., mere words of "conventional speech" rather than anything real. This "atta" being mere words an arahant is forced to use when talking to others is explained in SN 1.25 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.025.wlsh.html

My answer:
Some Buddhist texts when discussing non-Buddhist views appear to use the term 'atta' for 'soul', reflecting the beliefs of non-Buddhists about an eternal soul or abiding essence, such as:

There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists, and who on four grounds proclaim the self/soul and the world to be eternal.
  DN 1

Other Buddhist texts refer to 'self' as merely a fleeting conceptual thought fabrication, such as:

He assumes form to be a 'self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is
  the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. SN
  22.81

Therefore, it seems clear that 'self' & 'soul' are not synonyms in Buddhism.

The Buddha declares Eternalists to be incorrect (Nihilists also). Thus, Buddhism never asserts anything about 'soul' as far as I have seen. Two things that do not exist therefore cannot be synonyms, or have any other relationship. Please would you show a scripture that says anything substantive about 'soul'? Thank you.

I agree there is nothing substantive about 'soul' from a Buddhist perspective. But Eternalism is not a creation of the Buddha. The Buddha did not create Eternalism as an 'enemy' to argue against in the way the CIA creates enemies to justify its existence. Eternalism reflects the beliefs of non-Buddhists, who believe in a "soul".

Another reason why "atta" does not mean "soul" from the Buddhist view is because, if it did, the Buddha would have never taught in his 2nd sermon that the physical body was 'anatta' because most people do not believe the physical body is the soul. If anatta meant 'not-soul' there would be no need to teach the body is anatta. Regards

The two ideas 'self' and 'soul' are not synonyms or different.

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the
  holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is
  eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,'
  or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or
  'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a
  Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or
  'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After
  death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"
"No, lord."
"And did you ever say to me, 'Lord, I will live the holy life under
  the Blessed One and [in return] he will declare to me that 'The cosmos
  is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is
  finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the
  same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After
  death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not
  exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or
  'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"
"No, lord."
"Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming
  grievances/making demands of anyone?
  -- MN 63.3-6 (tr. Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

The Buddha is positionless:

"Vaccha, the position that 'the soul & the body are the same' [OR]
  'the soul is one thing and the body another' [ETC] is a thicket of
  views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of
  views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress,
  despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
  cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away
  with. What a Tathagata sees is this:
  'Such is form, such its origin,
  such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its
  disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications...
  such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.'
  Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out,
  cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all
  excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit —
  is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
  -- MN 72.1-15 (tr. Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

I think that this addresses the question sufficiently.

Saw this on a blog. Absolutely BRILLIANT. Not sure who wrote it:
The Unariyan Eightfold Ways on how to squirm and wiggle on the Soul

There is no Soul because my teacher said so
Because Atta is only conventional meaning such as yourself and doesn't designate anything really existing whatsoever.
Because Venerable Puthujjana Thera translates this passage with the word "myself", a reflexive.
Because the belief in a Soul is "Hinduism" not Buddhism.
Because Mr. Rhys David's 1921 Pali-English Dictionary which is based entirely on Theravada-nihilism advice says that Atta has two meanings depending on the context, even though his wife C.A.F. Rhys Davids who was far more a prolific translator states outright that her husband erred on this point completely.
Because Anatta means "no Soul" but Atta only means "yourself" (sick duplicity).
Because I am bipolar depressive and often suicidal and the notion of there being no Soul whatsoever calms me mentally.
Because ten million Theravada anti-foundationalist nihilistic sectarians cant be wrong!? Can they!?

The Eightfold no Soul Magga of the puthujjana

No soul is bliss. Soul belief is the source of all suffering. The end of the belief that there is a Soul is no Soul bliss. There is a path to no Soul from the suffering of the Soul
Wisdom is knowing that true Soul is no Soul. That which possesses true wisdom is no Soul.
Soul is unreal and untrue, therefore what is real and true is no Soul. What is real and true is highest! What is highest is no Soul.
What proclaims that there is no Soul is no Soul proclaiming it. What is no Soul is khandhas. Khandhas are Mara. Always listen to Mara!
There is never a Soul but always what is other than a Soul which is no Soul. What is no Soul is never Soul. What is no Soul is all. What is no Soul is the true refuge!
There is a path and no Soul reaps the fruit of it.
What truly knows that there is no Soul is no Soul. No Soul knows what it truly is, which is no Soul. This is bliss of no Soul.
There is an unborn, an unmade, an unmanifest and no Soul enters into it.

If you say there is no Soul, then you are aggregates. If you are the
aggregates then you are Mara. Mara is the five aggregates. What is
telling you there is no Soul must be the aggregates, which is Mara.
Mara is the great deceiver. If you believe there is no Soul then you
are none other than Mara, which is the great deceiver; therefore you
deceive yourself into believing there is no Soul.
If your never Self, then your always other. If your always other, then
your never Self. Therefore you can never be other than what you truly
are which is always other and never Self

I'm reading this as an "argument by ridicule", which is an unusual form on this site. I'm not sure how useful it is; and it might be taken as contrary to the Be nice policy (which, I ask you to read; and which is kind of essential, on every Stack Exchange site not just this one). Or maybe it was an in-joke, a self-parody.

Citta is an impermanent fleeting aggregate, as explained many times, as stated in SN 12.61. The aggregates are only Mara when they are objects of clinging. To quote SN 22.63 "If you cling to the body,... feelings,... perceptions,... mental formations,... consciousness, you are in bondage to Maara. If you do not cling, you are free of the Evil One.." Mara-Aggregate suttas are posted here: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/10754/the-five-aggregates-and-mara

The only Soul I have ever seen comes from Motown (as do I).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did the Buddha leave room for the possibility of a self?
Did the Buddha teach that a self or soul (whether permanent and fixed or impermanent and changing) cannot be found, did he teach that it cannot exist, or what?

It's called "the smallest room". But then, "The largest room in the world is the room for improvement."

This seems to have a duplicate here with more answers that may also be helpful.

the post in net site"puredhamma .net --what takes incarnation" will be of some use to getting answer

@user2341 Called by whom? Whatever the measure, it's always empty, I mean all I ever see is anatta that terrifies me but who knows? What do you mean by "small room"?

Buddha did not teach that things exist (that's one extreme) or that things do not exist (that's another extreme). Buddha teaches that things exist to some extent, in some context, relative to some frame of reference – and do not exist in other contexts. It's the same with the "self".

Are you sure the words ‘atthitañceva’ & ‘natthitañca’ in the Kaccaayanagotto Sutta refer to things existing or non-existing? Or do these words refer to two kinds of 'self-view'? ‘Atthi’ appears related to the word ‘asmi’ (“I am”). ‘Atthitā’ is said to mean ‘state of being’ (where ‘ta’ means ‘state’) and to be an abstact of ‘atthibhāva’. The word ‘natthi’ naturally has the opposite meaning

I think they refer to "the world"

'Loka' generally does not mean the earth. This thread is a discussion about it. Regards: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-pali-term-loka-or-world/3504

no, not the earth, the experience of the world: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/11744/43

You wrote: "I believe by "world" Buddha usually means the human civilisation, the society, the world of people". Yes, this is true. This is the world of "self" or "selves", born from craving.

In the Pali canon, it seems there is no categorical denial of a permanent self by the Buddha.
The most common texts about the not-self (anatta) doctrine are taught in the form " [something] is not self", where [something] is a phenomenon that is cognized: forms, feelings, thoughts, perceptions, etc. For example:

“Feeling is impermanent…. Perception is impermanent…. Volitional formations are impermanent…. Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
-- SN 22.45

A generalization of this teaching is found in AN 3.136:

sabbe dhammā anattā'ti
  all phenomena are non-self (Bodhi translation)

Where "phenomena" (dhammā) stands as a constituent of experience,  something or anything that can be experienced.
Now, the Buddha has been asked point blank if there's a self, but he refused to answer:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
-- SN 44.10

He then proceeds to explain why he did not answer (another explanation is given in SN 44.7):

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
— "No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

Some people take that Vacchagotta episode, plus the lack of any categorical denial and a few other texts and try to create evidence that the Buddha actually taught a permanent self doctrine. But all of them are considered  attempts of fitting a square into a circle hole -- usually they are not very convincing.
It's quite reasonable that If there was a permanent self that could be grasped, all the Buddha had to do was declare it and teach it. It would be much easier to understand then his doctrine of dependent origination and he wouldn't have to answer puzzling questions like "if there's no self, what reborns?".
To the best of my knowledge, the closest refutation for a doctrine of permanent self in the pali canon is the following sutta:

"Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?"
  —"No, venerable sir."
  —"Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it."
-- MN 22

If this teaching holds true, then the only possibility for a permanent soul to exist is if it exists outside the reach of experience, outside the possibility of contact.
But if we can't reach it to assess if it exist or not, if we cannot come into contact with it, then either it doesn't exist, or it exists but doesn't seem to have any effect in our existence -- since it's completely isolated from our experience. Thus, even if no phenomenon is our permanent self, but such a self still exists somewhere else, certainly it is irrelevant for our life, and believing or not seems to do little to help in the path towards nirvana -- after all, that permanent soul does not affect us in anyway.

Imo, it is inappropriate to refer to SN 44.10 because Vacchagotta was confused & the Buddha refused to answer Vacchagotta because it would have made Vacchagotta even more confused. Please read the sutta carefully. Further, the term "no self" (natthattā) was established by Vacchagotta and not by the Buddha. The Buddha taught in many places the world is completely void/empty (sunnata) of self or anything belonging to self. Of course this refers to empty of a permanent real self rather than the temporary delusion of self. The temporary delusion of self is not a self but suffering SN 5.10 SN 12.15

I disagree that it's inappropriate to inform the reader of the existence of SN 44.10 just because Vacchagotta was confused.

SN 35.85 states the world is completely void/empty (sunnata) of self or anything belonging to self.
SN 5.10 and SN 12.15 state there is no temporary conditioned 'self' because, in reality, what is regarded as a temporary delusion or view of 'self' is really only 'suffering'.

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering
  ceases.
SN 5.10

~~

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or
  cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases
  or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty
  or doubt that only stress, when arising, is arising; only stress, when
  passing away, is passing away. SN 12.15

In Sravakayana Sutras he stated that any dependently originated phenomenon are not self and in Mahayana Sutras he makes it clear that the Tathagatagharba and Nirvana hold the qualities of Permanence, Bliss, Self and Purity.

Buddha said Sabbe Dhamma Anatta.  Anatta means no self. There is no permanent , unchanging self.  How much clear should Buddha have made it ? There is no scope of Self as far as Dhammas are concerned.

For one, he would have been clearer , to me, if he spoke English. The Buddha sounds like he is constantly contradicting himself to someone new to his teaching. There is no anatta. See, it's not so clear. It's because he is jumping from intellectual, semantic and conceptual reality to ultimate and experiential reality so he constantly sounds like a koan.

@Lowbrow Buddha is not contradicting himself. Yes, it is true that knowing Anatta is one thing can realizing it another. You can be stream enterer or the perfected one .. you still practice the realization of Anatta.

I know the Buddha isn't contradicting himself! You didn't read my comment carefully. I do that all the time. For instance, I haven't read the rest of your comment after the word "himself".  I am a very low energy person but I'm working on it.

@Lowbrow Great. I was also a low energy person but I have changed since I realised the necessity of Metta.

Great! I was thinking of practicing Metta to get out of this rut but I am a major procrastinator. Do you know if it helps procrastination? Thank you

@Lowbrow That deserves a separate question. Why don't you put that as question on how to handle procrastination ?

"Did the Buddha leave room for the possibility of a self?"
Well, let's let THE MAN himself answer your question:

DN 2.157 Therefore Ananda, stay as those who have their True Self as
  the illumination, as those who have their True Self as supreme refuge,
  as those who have no other as the refuge; as those who have the true
  law Dharma as the illumination, as those who have the Dharma as
  refuge, as those who have no other refuge.
KN 3.78 And whoever, Ananda, either now or after my end will stay as
  those who have the True Self as the illumination, as those who have
  True Self as refuge, as those who have no other as the refuge…they
  among my bhikkhus shall reach the peak of immortality, provided they
  are desirous of training their True Self.
SN 3.174 Like a surge of the great ocean, so also will birth and death
  roll over you like a surge. Therefore, do make your True Self the
  supreme illumination, since there is no other refuge anywhere to be
  found for you. 4. My life is fully ripe, my life is at an end, I shall
  depart leaving you, I have made a supreme refuge for the True Self.
DN 2.24 Do make your True Self the illumination, strive fast, be wise.
  Having removed all stain, flawless, you will come to the divine Ariyan
  land.
AN 3.21 The phenomenal world all round is devoid of true essence, the
  four quarters are quaking. Desirous of an abode for the True Self, I
  saw none occupied.
KN 5.77 Is there by any chance any other dearer to you Mallika than
  the True Self? No Lord, there is not by any chance that which is
  dearer to me than the True Self.
AN 2.79 Going around all quarters with the mind. Not a thing was found
  dearer to me than the True Self. In this way the True Self of every
  one is dear to others.
MN 3.119 There is no love comparable to that of the True Self.
KN 5.38 One should not impair the good of the True Self, for the sake
  of the good of others, however great. Having ascertained the good of
  the True Self, let him be ever intent on it!
SN 1.109 One watches zealously over that which he holds dearest. This
  should apply to the True Self better than to anything else: If a man
  were to think the True Self dear, he would guard it most well guarded.
  The wise man should be watching in every one of the three watches of
  the night.
MN 4.83. And what does it mean to guard the True Self? Lord, while I
  was meditating in solitude, there arose in my mind the following
  thoughts. By whom is the True Self guarded, by whom is the True Self
  is not guarded? Then it occurred to me, whoever misbehaves by action,
  by word, or by thought, are those by whom the True Self is not
  guarded. Even if they were guarded by a troop of elephants, or horses,
  or of chariots, or of infantrymen, even so their True Self most dear
  would not be guarded by them.
<

  AN 2.234. Bhikkhus, I shall keep the True Self safe, this means that
  the stations of antecedent-recollectiveness of Samadhi must be dwelt
  upon intently.
SN 3.216. The True Self, the dearest thing for man, becomes an
  absolute value, which has to be preserved by all means and in
  preference to everything else: What should a man desirous of his own
  good never give up? What should a mortal man never surrender? Man
  should never give up the True Self most dear, he should never
  surrender the True Self.
AN 2.119. Him for whom the True Self is not enough, who procures for
  the True Self the taste of all sensual pleasures, even if the whole
  world were his, he would not obtain true bliss.
DN 3.218. Lord, while I was meditating in solitude, there arose in my
  mind the following thoughts. For whom is the True Self a dear friend,
  for whom is the True Self a hateful enemy? Then it occurred to me,
  whoever misbehaves by action, by letter of the law or by thought, are
  those for whom the True Self is a hateful enemy. Even if they were to
  say, the True Self is our dear friend, even so the True Self would be
  to them a hateful enemy. Why so? Whatever one who hates would do to
  the one he hates, that is what they themselves does unto their True
  Self. That is why the True Self is a hateful enemy to them. Whoever
  behaves properly by action, by letter of the law, or by thought, are
  those for whom their True Self is a dear friend.
DN 3.29. If he would recognize the True Self as dearest friend, he
  would not associate it with evil. 18. Then what do you think
  youngsters, what is the best thing for you, that you go in search of a
  woman or that your go in search of the True Self most dear? This Lord,
  is the best for us, that we go in search of the True Self!
SN 4.67. Bhikkhus, wise and developing a boundless penetration of
  antecedent recollection. A fivefold knowledge arises in their True
  Self in the case of those who, wise and immersed in antecedent
  recollection of the source develops a boundless penetration of
  antecedentness. What fivefold knowledge? This antecedent
  recollectiveness is pleasant at present and will yield a pleasant
  karmic result in the future, such knowledge arises in their True Self.
  This antecedent recollectiveness is noble, entirely spiritual and
  otherworldly, such knowledge arises in their True Self; this
  antecedent recollectiveness of the source is not practiced by the
  unworthy man. This antecedent recollectiveness is peaceful, most
  exquisite, obtained by the peaceful man, attained by means of mental
  fixation, not subject to the blame of the Sankaras. I too being in
  antecedent recollection of supreme beforeness in connection with the
  source enter into it and in antecedent recollection I emerge from it.
  Such profound knowledge arises in their True Self.
KN 5.18. A Buddha has arisen in the world, the doctrine of the Buddhas
  is at present being taught. The True Self can be saved by a man
  desirous of this doctrine.
KN 1.118 Whoever looks for the happiness of the True Self, should pull
  out the mortal dart of the True Self.
DN 2.281. Whose faith and wisdom are always properly fitted to the
  yoke, Supreme alert vigilance is the pole, mind is the yoke-straps,
  antecedent recollectiveness of the source is the guard and the
  Charioteer. The chariot having all the accessories of good faring,
  otherworldly knowledge as the axle, vigilant energy as the wheels.
  Equanimity is the fitting peg for the axle, desireless for fain of
  this world is the protective board. Excellent equanimity,
  deathlessness, and seclusion being the weapons, endurance the leather
  armor, it proceeds towards utter security. Such is the unsurpassed
  Brahman chariot produced in the True Self.
DN 3.28` Even as a deviating cart out of control, unrestrained,
  unmastered, destroys both the cart and the rider, in the same way the
  reckless fool, like a deviating cart destroys his True Self in hell,
  destroys the True Self in animal rebirth, destroys the True Self in
  the realm of wandering ghosts and spirits, destroys the True Self in
  the world of men, destroys the True Self in the world of gods.
  AN 2.28. And how is one a knower of the True Self? Herein bhikkhus, a
  bhikkhu knows the True Self. Just this much am I as regards faith,
  virtue, learning, disembodiment, wisdom, intelligence.
SN 2.97 Leaving aside the five hindrances for the obtainment of utter
  security. Taking up the mirror of Dharma for the knowledge and vision
  of the True Self, I observed the body both within and without,
  interiorly and exteriorly the body appeared to be empty.
MN 4.57 No Brahman ever claimed purity from any different source than
  the True Self. Either in things seen, heard, thought, or in
  observances. Unattached both to good and evil deeds, disclaiming
  whatever is obtained, he should be inactive in these observances. The
  ultimate purity which is the ideal of the enlightened man, here called
  a true Brahman, is a purity unaffected both by moral good and by moral
  evil, belonging to the plane superior to both, consisting in a
  condition that is reflected in the total absence of willful moral
  activities, in the absolute desirelessness to do evil and to obtain
  fruitless merit. This is the absolute isolation of the True Self which
  brings about liberation. The improvement caused by morality and moral
  practices is meant first of all to detach the True Self from what is
  evil, and this is mainly done by the counterpractice of goodness. This
  is not enough; any attachment of the True Self to whatever is not the
  True Self is itself wrong from the ultimate point of view. Moral good
  and the subsequent merit is not the True Self, even though it takes
  the True Self towards an ever more perfect detachment from worldly
  things. Finally the True Self has to be detached from morals,
  morality, merit and be freed with a freedom that is its very nature.
AN 2.281 Hence, let the wise man, discerning the welfare of the True
  Self, thoroughly investigate the Dharma, thus thereby he will be
  purified.
SN 2.27 I shall apprehend and perfect the True Self, having in mind
  the spiritual welfare of the True Self.
AN 4.76. Force the True Self by means of the True Self, control the
  True Self by means of the True Self. Being well guarded of the True
  Self, in antecedent recollectiveness, you shall bhikkhus dwell in
  supreme bliss.
DN 1.195 Leaving aside the way of darkness, the wise man should
  practice the way of light. Going from home to the homeless state, in
  solitude, where worldliness joys are difficult, there should he desire
  for the unexcelled bliss, setting aside sensory pleasures, possessing
  nothing. Let the wise man cleanse the True Self from the impurities of
  the mental goings on.
KN 3.28 Just as the goldsmith melts and removes the gross impurities
  of gold, then melts and removes average impurities, and melts and
  removes even the finest of impurities. Just so does the bhikkhu melts,
  removes, leaves aside, dispels, destroys, the impurities of his True
  Self.
AN 5.73 Not by heaping up firewood does the Brahman dream of
  purification. That is something external. Because, so the wise say,
  purity is not obtained by him who wishes to reach gain by means of
  external rituals. I, leaving aside the burning of wood, Brahman, make
  only destruction come unto those flames that are attached to by my
  True Self. With fire constantly burning, always with my True Self well
  composed, I that very Arahant, live my Brahman life. A shoulder yoke,
  Brahman is your conceit, anger is your smoke, your false words are the
  ashes. The tongue of the man is his sacrificial spoon, the heart his
  fire alter. The self well tamed is the fire. Dharma O' Brahman, is a
  lake with holy virtue as the bathing place, pure undefiled, praised by
  the good. Where the wise bathing, with their True Self disembodied, do
  so cross sweetly to that other shore.
AN 4.78 Where water, earth, fire, and air find no footing, there where
  the stars no longer shine, nor the sun, nor does the moon gleam; no
  darkness is found there. And when the mighty sage, that holy Brahman,
  has come to supreme knowledge by the True Self.
KN 2.118. One who has made a path by the True Self, he does so go unto
  complete retraction from aggregated being, having crossed all doubts.
  Leaving aside becoming and passing away. One who has lived the life,
  who has suppressed all rebirth, such a one is called a true bhikkhu.
KN 4.283. Sweetly within antecedent recollective penetration as
  regards the body, restrained within the six sensory spheres. The
  bhikkhu who is well composed would know the complete retraction from
  aggregated being of his True Self.
AN 1.81 There is monks, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an
  unformed. If there were not monks, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade
  and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated,
  the made and the formed.
SN 4.57 And I O' monks, who speak thus, and teach thus am accused
  wrongly, vainly, falsely, and inappropriately by some ascetics and
  Brahmins who say "A denier is the ascetic Gotama, he teaches the
  destruction, annihilation, and the perishing of the being that now
  exists". These ascetics wrongly, vainly, falsely, and inappropriately

I consider this not as an answer

Who translated these interesting translations?

@MettaforBullies it's the King James Version.

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

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


text:
Do Chinese-language publications about Zen Buddhism usually use Simplified or Traditional Chinese?
Is most of the Chinese content (books or articles) about Zen Buddhism, available on the internet, written in simplified or traditional Chinese?
And of course, now and then we want to buy printed books: so what about them?
Is simplified or traditional more widely used?

This is not a black and white simple answer... however, to give you ideas, for the original sutras that have been translated into Chinese, the classical ones are the best, they were translated by great masters like Kumarajiva, Xuanzang... these masters they themselves had reached the high level of self-cultivation (Bodhisattvas, Arhats) and the translation was promoted and sponsored by the Chinese Emperors in Ancient China; great scholars would be gathered, discussed, debated, then concluded the translations. For example, Kumarajiva and Xuanzang were both fluent in Sanskrit and Chinese. However, these sutras are written in Classical Chinese 文言文, the complete collection Tripitaka in Traditional Chinese.
However, Simplified Chinese is used in Mainland China by 11bn people since 1950s/1960s, and the Putonghua with Pinyin is very easy to learn for Westerners. There are brilliant practitioners in Mainland China and many of the treasures are inherited in the Mainland simply they are there. But Taiwan has strong roots in Buddhism since it's never truncated by any turmoils or Cultural Revolutions they used the Traditional Chinese. If you intend to read by the Modern Chinese you could find 南懷瑾 老師 Teacher Nan Huai-Chin, he is in this time one of the few most learnt and bright teachers resided in Taiwan but he really learnt all his knowledge when he was still in China. (Passed away.) A website has almost all his works: 实修驿站 (shixiu.net) in Simplified. Another is the Tibetan Rinpoche 慈誠羅珠.
If you are trying to buy books with translated sutra from Classical Chinese 文言文 to Modern Chinese 白話文 you have to be very very careful. These modern translations maybe erroneous or partially grasped the original meanings; Chinese language is a very graphical and refined language the meanings are not on the faces of the words, literally speaking. This is in particular for the Zen Buddhism. There is a famous Buddhist metaphor, that is "the finger pointing to the moon", if one watches the finger, one will fail to see the moon.

My answer is fairly short: in both.


text:
Can one get into the heart of Zen Buddhism without Chinese?
Do we know any Zen teachers/masters that do not have Chinese origins and do not speak Chinese? For example English?
P.S. I know that such type of logical questions are taken humorously in the zen culture, as it does not really matter but still my "small mind" is curious. Does one need to know Chinese in order to get to the heart of the teachings?

What is "Zen" in your context? Zen this word has been used indiscriminately lately in architectural, tea ritual, fashion, life style... Zen is a Japanese translation of 禪, Chinese Pinyin is "Chán", Sanskrit "Dhyāna". If you are talking about the original "Zen", inherited by Mahākāśyapa bought to China by Bodhidharama related to the Koans (公案) of the Ancient Chinese Chán Masters, ie, an enlightened master is about to use a word, sentence, 棒喝 (bàng hè, knock and shout) to enlighten the student, afraid the master no longer exists in this time of the world, neither does a ready student available.

In Australia, America and many other countiries, many zen temples offer classes in both English and Chinese (separately).

Sutra in English: http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=141&Itemid=57

Sutra in English (many): http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=4&id=13&Itemid=57

Of course!  There are plenty of American roshis who never took a day of Chinese in their lives.  Frankly, not knowing any language would be even better than knowing Chinese.  ;-)

Not really but when looking for good sources to learn from make sure translations are accurate and be ware of teachers that are those new age hippies that say Buddhism is not about rebirth, karma, has no gods, Zen is not Buddhism, etc.

I just stumbled upon an extract from the book "Zen mind, Beginner's Mind" that fits the question very well! I'm sure this quote from the book will save many smart or intelligent people from wasting their time!

The best way to develop Buddhism is to sit in zazen—just to sit, with a firm conviction in our true nature. This way is much better than to read books or study the philosophy of Buddhism.
  If you want to be a sincere Buddhist, the best way is to sit. We are very fortunate to have a place to sit in this way. I want you to have a firm, wide, imperturbable conviction in your zazen of just sitting. Just to sit, that is enough.
  Reality cannot be caught by thinking or feeling mind. Moment after moment to watch your breathing, to watch your posture, is true nature. There is no secret beyond this point.

Of course, "the best" are just relative 2 words that the authors try to simplify the whole book but I thought it'd be useful for the "mind wanderers" like me to settle down. Knowing that it comes from an expert, haha!


text:
What is Anuloma-nana? How does this insight works?
What is anuloma-nana and how does this adaptation-knowledge makes the switch from the mundane to the supramundane world?

Ñānadassana-visuddhi - 'purification of knowledge and vision', is the last of the 7 purifications and a name for path-knowledge, maggañāna i.e. the penetrating realization of the path of Stream-winning, Once-returning, Non-returning or Arahatship.  The Knowledge of Adaptation (anuloma-ñana) comes under this seventh purification.
The only sutta that fully explains the seven purifications is Rathavinita Sutta. It explains in full the seven purifications (SAPTHA VISUDDHI) taught by the Buddha. The Ratha-vinita Sutta: Relay Chariots  (MN 24; M.I,145).
The only place in the Canon where these 7 kinds of purification are mentioned is M. 24,, The Simile of the Stage-coach; There it is said that the real and ultimate goal does not consist in purification of morality, or of mind, or of view, etc., but in total deliverance and ceasing. Now, just as one mounts the first coach and travels to the second coach, then mounts the second coach and travels with it to the third coach, etc.,
in exactly the same way the goal of (I) the purification of morality (sila-visuddhi) is  (II) the purification of mind (citta-visuddhi)
its goal: (III) the purification of view (ditthi-visuddhi)
its goal: (IV) the purification by overcoming doubt kankhāvitarana-visuddhi
its goal: (V) the purification by knowledge and vision of what is path and not-path (maggāmagga-ñānadassana-visuddhi)
its goal: (VI) the purification by knowledge and vision of the path-progress  (patipadā-ñānadassana-visuddhi);
its goal: (VII) the purification of knowledge and vision (ñānadassana-visuddhi)
but the goal of this purification is deliverance freed from all clinging.
By the purification of knowledge are here meant the following, which are freed from defilements, follow the right process, and are considered as insight, namely:

knowledge consisting in contemplation of rise and fall (udayabbayānupassanā-ñāna),
in contemplation of dissolution (bhangānupassanā-ñāna),
in awareness of terror (or the fearful) (bhayatūpatthānā-ñāna),
in contemplation of misery (ādīnavānupassanā-ñāna),
in contemplation of aversion (nibbidānupassanā-ñāna),
in the desire for deliverance (muccitu-kamyatā-ñāna),
in reflecting contemplation (patisankhānupassanā-ñāna),
in equanimity regarding all formations of existence (sankhārupekkhā-ñāna) - which is followed by
in adaptation to truth (saccānulomika-ñāna) ie. anuloma-nana.

So there is a very long way for you and I to go in this Path before coming to this anuloma-nana. Wisdom derived from the preliminary nanas, the ones before it. This Anuloma nana has the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. In the anuloma nana, the Four Noble Truths appear clearly and distinctly.

It's not the only place. There are many visuddhi in uncountable sutta but because we don't recite sutta by pali, so it is over hard to see "this word is this visuddhi, that word is this visuddhi".

Yogi with dedication work hard in meditation achieving lower nana stages step by step , will attain the knowledge of equanimity regarding the formation where all notice on phenomena is so clear cut that each and every detail can be noted without much effort and to the exact timing. With more effort and further concentration, noting on these phenomena become faster and faster , more and more subtle with great moment until all of a sudden, all these cease to be, reaching gotrabhu.

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


text:
Realms : About a certain Deva's concubine's rebirth?
I have heard a story in which a concubine of a certain Deva died while she was with him and other concubines of him in a park. She was born as a human in next life but she remembered who she was in her last life and so she wanted nothing but to return to her deva. So she lived a virtuous life and was born among the very bunch again.
Her death has gone unnoticed and her deva asks her where she's been. Here she tells him about her human life and he is amazed by the short life of humans as they are still in the very same park enjoying it's beauty, remaining there since the last time she was a deva (A whole human life spent in a single visit to a park)
I have often seen this story used as an anchor by monks to explain the length of life in higher realms saying

"It has only been a few days for them since the Parinirvana of Lord Buddha, so there is still thee purest of the teaching as there are ones who saw  and listened to lord buddha there still among them. Also there are enlightened one's from that era still living and advising there."

I can't help but think that no mater what no one will spend a human lifetime's length to have a  walk in a park.
Perhaps this is a time lapse that is here?
I know this is not a place to play with science and buddhism. but i'm asking this to get an explanation as i've seen many people listen to this and delay their efforts limiting themselves to hording only good karma but no other efforts on much arduous sections of the path.

Before you downvote or delete this please consider the kind of good or harm that can come of this as this is an interpretation that has rallied too many people behind it (At least in my country). And i'm not asking for opinions either
What can we make of this?
Is it a universal phenomenon like time lapse/ Einstein's reletivity?
Or a misinterpretation?

Your question is: is it scientifically and metaphysically true that there are different time scales for the devas, humans and other beings? If so, my answer is yes.
Metaphysically, there are different realms of beings. Those celestial beings have longer lifespans and their days and nights are longer than humans, depended on the layer of celestial realm they belonged. some's day and night is equal to a year in human's, or equal to thousand years of the human time scale.
Scientifically, these could be proved. In the Solar System, some planets take longer time to circulate the sun, compared to earth's 365.25 days (a year); some planets' self-rotation is longer, compared to earth's 24 hours (a day). It is estimated that the sun takes 25000/26000 years to circulate the galactic center, and the milky way is circulating another astronomical object. Only this will make the time scale different, not to say that there are Einstein/quantum level of force and phenomena.
Buddha also talked about the lifespan for human was co-related, from 84000 (I believe this figure equal to the meaning of numberless in Buddha's time) to 100. When in the 100, it will reduce to 10, as the karma of the kalpa going worser and worser.
This "time lapse" stories not only exist in the Deva stories (Indian), also told in Chinese myths.

thanks for the answer friend. the time lapse is a concept of my own but the story is in the Theravada tipitaka. Even though day&night of a planet is like you describe it is hard to believe that an entire human lifetime was spent in a garden. because even if the day can be long in a planet, that does not mean the person feels the time any differently. So that is why i chosed Einstein's Relativity to explain this phenomenon.


text:
Is there a point for a not continues practice?
i practice for a few years - did basic course and few retreats in Ven/ajhan tong tradition (vipassana)  - But no matter what technique i try (meditating a short amount like 5 minutes - only being mindful - keeping 8 precepts meditating all day) i never manage to keep practicing more than a few days and than taking a break for a few months with 0 minute meditating and being mindful
Question : I remember reading in several places the importance of continued practice of a steady practice  - and since i make huge breaks all the time and cant seem to prevent them - i wonder if there is a point in the practice if i almost certain i will take this huge breaks  - i don't seem to be "advancing" in any way but i would keep practicing if it was only not seeing "results"  but cause i read in so many place the importance of continued practice
is there a point in a very inconsistent practice ? if so in what ways  someone who has this an inconsistent practice like mine be advancing advance ?

Be all-in and make it work, or set it aside. Focus completely on something instead of partial. In "The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali", three levels of commitment and intensity of practice are described, and each of these is subdivided into three levels. Only for the most enthusiastic and committed people is finality assured.

what do you mean : "something instead of partial"   ?

Sorry, by 'partial' I meant not committing fully, allowing something you are attached to to stop you.

i tried "all in" many times (and also tiny medtations)  but i always fail and stop  - no matter what i try i keep it for 3-4 days max  and usually 1-3 days than i take something like 4 month break from mindfulness

Some day, there will be a permanent break from mindfulness. What you do until then is up to you. I ran a retreat center, without pay for ten years, and in the end lost everything. It was worth it.

You should consider the following
Change your approach
In Mahayana Buddhism the emphasis is on skillful means, sitting meditation is not the only practice available, there are plenty of other Dharma practices you can do, build up your base of merits first. You could focus on chanting a particular passage or mantras, this allow your mind something to focus on, and you will naturally see mindful concentration arise through this practice, even without trying to sit.
You could attend services, try to participate in any group chanting if available - Theravada is far as I know is not available for lay people in this case. But there are plenty of Mahayana Buddhist temples that offer group chanting with lay people.
You could offer to help clean up the temple, cleaning is also a powerful practice for mindful concentration if you can focus on what you are doing. Zen monks can do chores like cleaning and still experience Zen also known as Jhana. They blissfully and mindfully perform the tasks needing to be done. Go forth and volunteer! In fact, just participate and enjoy the community, you will learn something!
You can practice offering alms to your community of monks, giving is a great practice of Dāna and give rise to skillful mental qualities. In fact before you try to focus your mind on sitting meditation, try to cultivate positive qualities like love, kindness and avoid negative ones like anger in your daily life.
As you build up your merits, you will find it easier to sit because your mind will naturally begin to calm.
Know that your effort makes a difference
Yes a consistent practice is of course better, but even one single change of thought will make a difference no matter how small. Take comfort in this. Have some confidence in the fact that even when you don't seem to be 'getting somewhere' at least you are not doing something harmful, and that is already making a difference, and if you are not advancing, at least you are not sliding towards more suffering.
And your actions will eventually create the causes and conditions favorable to further your path, whether it will take years or life times. Have some faith.

I've once heard a Buddhist nun saying If you say "I can't do it" it almost always means "I don't want to do it". I felt a bit caught hearing this the first time. But it seems to be true, if the mind is always thinking about the future, what might happen and what might not happen, what you will gain or what you will loose, or if it's thinking about the past it's really impossible to stay present have and sati and rememeber what's actually happening. The (so called untrained) mind will do anything to escape the present moment. Therefore a inconsistent practice is far better than no practice at all, because a inconsistent practice can become consistent ... through practice. But if you don't practice at all, there is no practice that could become consistent. So if your aim is a consistent practice you continue being inconsistent until you're consistent. Also what do you think is practice? Do you mean only formal meditation by saying 'practice'? It's not quantity but quality that is important. I.e. If I were to ask you "In what posture are you in right now? Sitting, Lying, Standing, Walking?" and you'd remind yourself "I'm sitting (or else)" then this moment of reminding would be practice, right?
I've made a small collection of motivating and inspiring references/quotes from the teachings:
From SN22.101

"Suppose a hen has eight, ten, or twelve eggs: If she doesn't cover them rightly, warm them rightly, or incubate them rightly, then even though this wish may occur to her — 'O that my chicks might break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely!' — still it is not possible that the chicks will break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely. Why is that? Because the hen has not covered them rightly, warmed them rightly, or incubated them rightly. In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development — 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' — still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path.

From the Dhammapada (II. Heedfulness)

[21.] Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.
[26.] The foolish and ignorant indulge in heedlessness, but the wise one keeps his heedfulness as his best treasure.
[29.] Heedful among the heedless, wide-awake among the sleepy, the wise man advances like a swift horse leaving behind a weak jade.

From Ajahn Chah: Food for the Heart (Chapter: Steady Practice)

I didn’t know what to do, I was
  baffled. Then I realized that the practice which is steady is the
  important thing. One must practice consistently. They call this
  the practice that is “consistent in all postures.” Keep refining the
  practice, don’t let it become a disaster. Practice is one thing, disaster is another.
Most people usually create disaster. When they
  feel lazy they don’t bother to practice, they only practice when
  they feel energetic. This is how I tended to be.
  All of you ask yourselves now, is this right? To practice when
  you feel like it, not when you don’t: is that in accordance with
  the Dhamma? Is it straight? Is it in line with the teaching? This
  is what makes practice inconsistent.
Whether you feel like it or not you should practice just the
  same: this is how the Buddha taught. Most people wait till they’re
  in the mood before practicing, when they don’t feel like it they
  don’t bother. This is as far as they go. This is called “disaster,”
  it’s not practice. In the true practice, whether you are happy or
  depressed you practice; whether it’s easy or difficult you practice;
  whether it’s hot or cold you practice. It’s straight like this. In the
  real practice, whether standing, walking, sitting or reclining you
  must have the intention to continue the practice steadily, making
  your
  sati
  consistent in all postures.

From AN06.055

"Now what do you think, Sona. Before, when you were a house-dweller, were you skilled at playing the vina?" - "Yes, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut, was your vina in tune & playable?" - "No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose, was your vina in tune & playable?" - "No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too taut nor too loose, but tuned1 to be right on pitch, was your vina in tune & playable?" - "Yes, lord."
"In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune2the pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your theme."

From MN131

You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart. Ardently doing what should be done today, for — who knows? — tomorrow death. There is no bargaining with Mortality & his mighty horde. Whoever lives thus ardently, relentlessly both day & night, has truly had an auspicious day: so says the Peaceful Sage.

yes in practice i mean sati not only in formal practice ---
how you determine the right pitch for your persistence ?

"because a inconsistent practice can become consistent "   im in this for so long - never got a consistent practice  -    im not talking about reaching  nirvana im not talking about reaching sotpana  im just talking about being able to maintain  a consistent practice

@breath I think most teachers would consider "a few years of practice" not necessarily a long time. They speak in terms of lifetimes. I've personally remember having very large gaps of a few weeks between meditation sessions and I only meditated when suffering reached a certain point where I felt it was necessary to do something now. I think the best thing you can do  (looking back) in such a situation is to be very careful of feelings of guilt and dislike and note it with "disliking, disliking", "worry, worry" and just keep going and do meditation whenever you can make yourself do it.

even now you quoted ajhan chah :
Then I realized that the practice which is steady is the important thing. One must practice consistently. They call this the practice that is  “consistent in all postures.”------          so even here he says a practice should be consistent  i dont care about slow advancing  but i m not sure i advance at all

i cant even do good consistently -  but a tiny small action has a tiny affect which stands by itself   ...   even a 10 minute meditation or being mindful doing a choir for 10 minutes washing dishes even 30 minutes  of it     -    isnt  helpful if the next 3 months i have 0 mindfulness and watch videos all day

The Buddha said "sati is always useful". So don't think in terms of what you can't do, but in terms of what you can do (right now). You can only start from where you are. My advice would be to find yourself a teacher, who can give you proper guidance.

I have a teacher - still would be helpful to get an answer for this question that i never got an answer to even though i asked many people

If you take ups a sport and do irregular practice there will be some benefit but you will not react your true potential which you perhaps can reach with regular practice. Practice of mindfulness is also similar.

If  i want to be a soccer player and i walk a little bit for a minute  -
than i get two types of benefits  :  one in general health  (my lungs are better a bit - my muscles are better ect)    and im better in soccer a bit cause im in a tiny bit more shape than i was before .....  this i will get if i do 1 minute walking in an day/month/year   it still has benefit
what benifits i get with 1 minute meditation alone in a  day/month/year


text:
Vegetarianism in Buddhism on different schools
Namo Buddhaya
I want to ask something related to vegetarianism in Buddhism. This question started when I read about vegetarianism according to several schools of Buddhism such as Theravada and Mahayana.
According to Theravada, the Buddha allows Buddhist and monks to consume meat if it is not seen, heard, or suspected as a sentient being is not slaughtered only for the eater. This is stated in Jivaka Sutta, MN 55. There were also monastic guidelines in Theravada stated that Buddhists are prohibited to eat 10 types of meat such as humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. This is because these animals can be provoked by the smell of the flesh of their own kind, or because eating of such flesh would generate a bad reputation for the Sangha. This makes sense for me but why is cat not included ? So, the monks are not prohibited to eat meat and the rule is also not stated in the Vinaya (227 Patimokkha precepts).
According to Mahayana, the Buddha doesn't allow his followers not to eat any kind of meat. Even if vegetarian food has been touched by meat, it needs to be washed away before it can be eaten. The Mahayana's precepts refer to the Dharmadatu. It means when you eat the flesh of a sentient being, it is the same as you eat the flesh of a single dhatu. For example, when you eat a chicken's flesh, it is the same as you eat the flesh of the chicken's mother.
The 2 schools have made me confused which one is the right one? Why the Buddha's preaching about vegetarianism is not same in Theravada and Mahayana schools. Is the Buddha who preached about those not only Sidharta Gautama? However, because of this confusing, I take the own way or Middle way, that is, not to eat meat too often in order to save the world because of the green house gases.
I hope the Buddhists here can help me to attain bright explanation of vegetarianism in buddhism. I'm sorry if there are misintrepreted sentences from me. Thank you
Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta. I hope all sentient beings can live happily.

According to Mahayana, the Buddha doesn't allow his followers not to
  eat any kind of meat.

To my limited knowledge, this statement is not true. What I mean is that:

I do not know of any Mahayana sutra in which the Buddha proscribed the eating of meat.
There is no Pratimoksha vow (neither in the Mūlasarvāstivāda nor in the Dharmagupta linage) prohibiting even a monk to eat meat.

However, it is true that Mahayana tends to encourage the stoppage of meat consumption. For instance:

One of the 8 Mahayana 24 hours precepts says not to eat at inappropriate times. Most Mahayana institutions interpret it to mean (in addition to not eating after lunch) not to eat black food. In this respect, Lama Yeshe says:

Fasting. The foods we shouldn’t have are onion, garlic, eggs, and
  meat—these are recognized as black foods. Also, radish has a bad
  element, a bad power. Taking these foods affects the pure power of the
  mind. If we are only concerned for the body, it is okay, but for a
  person practicing Dharma and following precepts the reason is keeping
  the body clean but not with attachment. These foods destroy the power
  of the body and the power of the mind, making one sleepy, unconscious,
  and so on.

Master Padmasambhava, the founder of Tibetan Buddhism, stated in his terma Jewel Lamp Commentary on the Three Roots: “The eating of meat should be gradually stopped,..."
In some countries where Mahayana strives, it is expected of monks and nuns not to eat meat. It is even expected of them to eat vegan. Such is the case of Vietnam, for instance, where I went last summer. It is not because of the Pratimoksha, but because it is expected of monks holding the bodhisattva vows to express compassion in this way. It is a matter of principle, since there is no bodhisattva vow prohibiting the eating of meat.

I do not think it is related to the Dharmadhatu, but simply to the notion that eating meat amounts to eating the flesh of a sentient being that used to be one's mother. If anything, it is related to karma, rebirth and compassion. It is because the seven-fold training to arise the mind of enlightenment - bodhicitta - includes remembering that all sentient beings have been our mother, remembering their kindness, wanting to repay their kindness, generating compassion, etc.
Although Mahayana tends to encourage the stoppage of eating meat, several Mahayana practitioners do eat meat in fact. For instance, there is a great practitioner who eats so much meat that, when she approaches our area, we say the cows are crying.
Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche gives his view on vegetarianism.

Strictly speaking the Buddha did not forbade the consumption of meat.
I am from the Chinese Mahayana tradition and I have taken the Refuge in the Triple Gem, as well as the Five Precepts. Even with taking upon the Five Precepts, I was not expected to be a vegetarian outside the setting of the temple.
Historically the Buddha considered the support of the Sangha and allowing people to perform Dana by giving alms much more important than a strict vegetarian diet.
Monks were expected to go on alms round, and were expected to accept any food offered by devotees. The Theravada Buddhist monks who continue to practice going out for alms are essentially not vegetarian.
Even in Tibet where they are also Mahayana, the monks as well as lay devotees consume meat, since vegetables do not grow at that altitude. In the modern day, vegetables are imported from the rest of China, so I have seen some vegetarian restaurants there during my visit. Most of Tibetans do still consume meat however, with Sichuanese cuisine being an apparent favorite due to the influx of Sichuanese immigrants.
The reason why vegetarianism became predominant in Chinese Buddhism as well as the rest of the Sinosphere is because of historical reasons.
First, historically the ruling Confucian philosophers objected to monks going out for alms, seeing them as a form of begging, which was against the civic-minded Confucian values. Monks were restricted to obtaining donations and many were forced to subsist by farming. Since the very first Precept require monks to abstain from killing, vegetarianism naturally arise. Hence Chinese tradition like Chan Buddhism have a long history of growing and cooking their own vegetarian food.
Second condition I believe was during the reign a Buddhist Chinese emperor (Liang Emperor if I recall) pious support for the Buddhist clergy, he found it rather contradictory to the teachings that so many animals were being slaughtered to be offered as alms for monks, so required the food to be vegetarian.
Finally it is expected that lay followers of the Bodhisattva precepts take up vegetarianism (but I believe is not strictly stated in the Precepts), out of compassion for animal. The karmic effect presumably is the same as the practice of freeing animals doomed for slaughter.
Further more, even though Chinese Vegetarianism is typically vegan, if someone offered cakes to the temple (typically having dairy and eggs), it would be accepted.
Essentially Chinese Buddhism encourage vegetarianism, but do not strictly require it.
The effect of this is that it is much easier to find vegetarian restaurants in Taiwan than say Thailand, despite the latter being much more overtly Buddhist.

maybe you dont eat meat based on other Bodhisattvas you have or other holy perosns views which are not the historical buddha ??
About theravada which i follow :   the buddha we are talking about at least didnt ban eating meat
i think in theravada its all about kusala and akusala
and i can think at the moment on  benefits from being Vegan :
Restraint which helps in many ways  -  and it might even help in metta
probably more benefits also  - and like all things you can have bad sides like if you give money and you get to proud of the fact you give money and think your better than others same with not eating meat ect
the problem with this issue is that meat tastes good - so people will look for ways to justify eating it but not so much why not to

This is not much to explain here. There is no evidence for results of kamma outside of your conscious experience. You have a conscience. The more you meditate & are sensitive to the heart, the clearer your conscience, the more compassion you have, the more ability to reason with wisdom. If the mind is free from greed & lust for food, it can calmly make a sensitive decision based on weighing various factors (costs & benefits). People have always eating meat for food, meat will always be available, we certainly feel better knowing we are minimizing harm & damage.
The Buddha's attitude for food is summed in the Puttamansa Sutta.


text:
Why did the buddha teach the mahayana?
I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon is that he needed to teach it for those who were not ready to accept the Mahayana. But do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths, etc., as they appear in Theravada? Or will / have some Buddhas taught only (their own) enlightenment?

I'm asking because I'm confused: whether or not it's logical to be! How can there be a Buddha without Arhants?
If some or all Buddhas teach an enlightenment without Arhants, who in turn teach an enlightenment without Arhants, how this is any different to Arhantship, just under a different name?

i suppose that the question in the title is a bit off given that there's only one vehicle, but something there is confusing me

Not all scholars accept that there is only one final vehicle. Anyway, by "enlightenment" (you yourself placed quotes), do you mean path?

@TenzinDorje hey thanks for the comment. 'path' or 'realisation of path', i guess either works?

The title ("Why did the buddha teach the mahayana?") doesn't seem to match the question ("Do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths?"), therefore I'm not sure what the question is. I find it clear if the title is a summary of the question, or repeats the question.

@ChrisW any better?

The Noble Truths do not belong in one teaching and not in another. The subtlety for Mahayana compared to Theravada may be that the first Truth would be conventional only. The path to the cessation of suffering would be the process of discovering that for an ultimate view there is no suffering or anyone to suffer. But afaik all traditions accept the Noble Truths. I feel @santa100 sums up the situation in his or her answer.

Why did the Buddha teach the mahayana? No, He did not teach Mahayana. Nor did He teach Theravada, Sarvastivada, Pudgalavada, etc. and the 18 or so schools that splitted from His original Teaching/Dhamma after His passing away. Fortunately for us, all the different schools still share the same "core" regarding the Discourses and Discipline: 3 characteristics, 4NT, 5 Precepts, 8NP, 12DO, etc. Of course there're certain doctrinal disagreements among the schools which is expected and unavoidable but if one sticks to those pillars of teaching, one'd find out that they have a lot more in common than difference.

Theravada teaches the path to individual enlightenment. Mahayana teaches the path to save all sentient beings, as follows:

"Not until the hells are emptied will I become a Buddha; not until
  all beings are saved will I certify to Bodhi."
"Beings are numberless, I vow to save them. Desires are inexhaustible,
  I vow to end them. Dharma gates are boundless, I vow to enter them.
  Buddha's way is unsurpassable, I vow to become it."
Bodhisattva Vows

No person has ever saved all sentient beings or emptied the hells, including any Buddhas. It would be expected a Buddha would teach what is possible & achievable. A person that has not completed their Path cannot be a Buddha.

i downvoted cos you make the same unsubstantiated argument whenever i mention the mahayana, which isn't helpful. if you want to make the point, do it in a q&a format on your own question. no offence meant

Thanks but my argument is not "unsubstantiated". Instead, my point of view is 100% substantiated because for the last 2,600 years, since the start of the existence of Buddhism, there has never ever been a time when all beings have been saved/liberated.I would suggest you think deeply about the truth of what you think & write, particularly about other people. What I wrote is the 100% truth. It is best to not accuse others of not speaking the truth or speaking factually when they do so. Kind regards

you are mistaken if you think that you have disproven the mahayana tradition so easily. think about what you say, how you are just another insignficant person who probably hasn't even studied the mahayana much. you are not breaking new ground, and you have no secret proof that the mahayana is bunk. and if you're not saying that the mahayana is impossible then why do you keep repeating your formula

I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon
I'm not sure that it's "about the Theravada canon".
I don't know what you're referring to but if you look at The Jewel Ornament Of Liberation, for example, the introduction (Part 1) identifies five "families":

Disconnected -- no concern for
  what others think, no modesty, no compassion, and so forth
Indefinite -- might join the Hearer or Solitary Realizer or a Mahayana, depending on what kind of master they meet or what texts they study
Hearer -- The family of Hearers consists of those who fear samsara and yearn to achieve nirvana, but who have little
  compassion. It has been said:
One who is afraid upon seeing the suffering of samsara
  And yearns to achieve nirvana
  But has little interest in benefitting sentient beings—
  These three are the marks of the Hearer family
Solitary Realizer -- similar to hearer except also,
Little compassion, arrogance,
  Secretive about their teachers, and enjoying solitude—
  A wise one should understand that these are the marks of the Solitary Realizer family
Mahayana family

I think it's worth noting that the Mahayana is not being contrasted here with Theravada.
One tradition associated with Bodhisattva vows teaches that disparaging others is a downfall.

It is very risky for Mahayana practitioners to think that the Mahayana teachings are the highest, the most complete or advanced teachings and that the other teachings such as those of the Theravadin are lower or incomplete. Having such a feeling is really a very heavy negativity.
  When the Buddha taught these different liberation vehicles he did not teach that the Individual Liberation vehicle is the starting point, the Mahayana vehicle is in the middle and Vajrayana is the completion. He taught according to people’s different mental dispositions and we must understand it in that context. No one system is ‘better’, ‘higher’ or ‘more advanced’ than the others.
  Of course, in order to understand teachings such as the Vajrayana, an understanding of the Bodhisattva teachings on emptiness and bodhicitta is needed because there is a strong link between them and the entire Vajrayana practice is designed to make the Bodhisattva path quicker. It is very important not to have a notion that some teachings are lower or inferior to others.

Perhaps it's less to do with what the canons are, and more to do with how you relate with other people.
But do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths, etc., as they appear in Theravada?
The only thing I've read on that subject (i.e. about the teaching of "all Buddhas") are these verses of the Dhammapada:

On one occasion, Thera Ananda asked the Buddha whether the Fundamental Instructions to bhikkhus given by the preceding Buddhas were the same as those of the Buddha himself. To him the Buddha replied that the instructions given by all the Buddhas are as given in the following verses:
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.
Verse 184: The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.
Verse 185: Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

I personally see the four noble truths as central; but I think this question showed that they're not a doctrine that make sense to everyone, and the answers to that question show that there are different aspects of Buddhism that different people consider central.
This set of lists suggests that even only within the Theravada canon, the doctrine is more than the four noble truths (or it's sometimes summarized as doctrine simpler than the four noble truths).

in no way am i disparaging anyone, i find that a strange almost disparaging thing to imply. and nowhere did i say that theravada only teachs the 4 noble truths, so why do you seem to want to correct me on that

@ChrisW I found this answer is very comprehensive, don't know why it's downvoted. I can only +1 to cancel out the -1 but it should be more. In fact the questioner seems confused in his own questions...

"I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon is that he needed to teach it for those who were not ready to accept the Mahayana. "
This is a skillful means explanation to a very long issues spanning centuries.
First of all you need to be aware of the Abhidhamma:

The Abhidhamma Pitaka is a detailed scholastic reworking of material
  appearing in the Suttas, according to schematic classifications.

The narrative:

Tradition[4] holds that the Buddha thought out the Abhidhamma
  immediately after his enlightenment then taught it to the gods some
  years later.

The facts

Scholars, however, generally date the Abhidhamma works to originating
  some time around the third century BCE, 100 to 200 years after the
  death of the Buddha. Therefore, the seven Abhidhamma works are
  generally claimed by scholars not to represent the words of the Buddha
  himself, but those of disciples and scholars

The debate

As the last major division of the canon, the Abhidhamma Pitaka has had
  a checkered history. It was not accepted as canonical by the
  Mahasanghika school[dubious – discuss][2][10] and several other
  schools[dubious – discuss].[11] Another school included most of the
  Khuddaka Nikaya within the Abhidhamma Pitaka.[2] Also, the Pali
  version of the Abhidhamma is a strictly Theravada collection, and has
  little in common with the Abhidhamma works recognized by other
  Buddhist schools.[12] The various Abhidhamma philosophies of the
  various early schools have no agreement on doctrine

The Early Mahayana sutras

Several scholars have suggested that the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, which
  are among the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras,[17][18] developed among the
  Mahāsāṃghika along the Kṛṣṇa River in the Āndhra region of southern
  India.[19]
The earliest Mahāyāna sūtras to include the very first versions of the
  Prajñāpāramitā genre, along with texts concerning Akṣobhya Buddha,
  which were probably written down in the 1st century BCE in the south
  of India.[20][21] Guang Xing states, "Several scholars have suggested
  that the Prajñāpāramitā probably developed among the Mahāsāṃghikas in
  southern India, in the Āndhra country, on the Kṛṣṇa River."[19] A.K.
  Warder believes that "the Mahāyāna originated in the south of India
  and almost certainly in the Āndhra country."[22]

Prajñāpāramitā

Prajñāpāramitā is a central concept in Mahāyāna Buddhism and is
  generally associated with the doctrine of emptiness (Shunyata) or
  'lack of Svabhava' (essence) and the works of Nagarjuna. Its practice
  and understanding are taken to be indispensable elements of the
  Bodhisattva path.

So why is all this important to the question?
It is because the Mahayana started out to counter the ontological claims presented in the Abhidhamma of various early Buddhist schools. You first need to understand the fundamental of the teachings before you can point out the issues within the teachings.
Many people including scholars and practitioners find Prajñāpāramitā sutras to be incomprehensible, even labeling it crazy wisdom.
However it is ultimately the application of dependent origination even to the attainments themselves. This verse by Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamaka Karika is the key to unlocking this understanding.

All dharmas that arise from causes and conditions,
I call them emptiness.
They are also provisional names,
And also the Middle Way.

The Chinese text

眾因緣生法，我説即是空；
亦為是假名，亦是中道義。

What Nagarjuna is saying, is that because all dependent originated phenomenon are due to causes and conditions, by their very conditionality they are impermanent and without self. As stated by the Buddha.

Pratītyasamutpāda
"When this is, that is;
This arising, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
This ceasing, that ceases."

Therefore because things are impermanent and without a true lasting self. He call them 'empty'.
However the term 'emptiness' is also just a convenient label, because it does not fully explain the complexity of the phenomenon and all the causes that made up something. To say something is 'empty' is that it ultimately lacks an underlying 'essence', but does not mean that it does not exist but that it does not truly exist.
This is therefore the Middle Way between Eternalism and Annihilationism. To be annihilationist is to say nothing exists and that there are no causes for anything to occur. This isn't the definition of emptiness as used by Nagarjuna. It is because there are causes, there are outcomes, but because they are made up of causes, there are also impermanent, hence is not Eternal.
So whenever you come across a text like the following:

Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is form.
Heart Sutra

Your should consider the meaning of emptiness.
Form is dependently generated, Dependent origination is form.
Form is impermanent, Impermanence is form.
Form is without self, Without self is form.
So the question would be, why did Mahayana Buddhist Nagarjuna rephrase what is already a known Buddhist concept into 'emptiness'.
It because of what they perceived as the reification of Buddhist teachings in the Abhidhamma by schools, recall that even in modern Theravada teaches that Nibbanna is unconditioned, a deathless dimension, and that the Arahants are perfect etc.
Nagarjuna denies such permanence and eternalism.
This is why it is stated:

There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever.

Because wisdom is itself conditioned (by the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path), and therefore wisdom too is impermanent. Hence the fruit of Four Stages of Attainment (Stream Entry, Once Returner, One Returner, Arahantship are too impermanent).
It is not saying that there wisdom does not exist or the fruits of the contemplative life does not exist. They do exist, but like everything else are impermanent and not self.
Nagarjuna is breaking our attachments to the attainments within the very Dharma itself! Even Nirvana itself is impermanent! The end of suffering as is suffering is caused and conditioned and is impermanent! This is the meaning of non-duality in Mahayana Buddhism. It is not that wisdom and ignorance is the same. It is because they are both ultimately impermanent and cannot be permanently separated.
As you can see you first need to know what is there, such as the attainment of wisdom, the ending of suffering before you can come back and let go of even the attachments to those things. A person with no experience in Buddhism hearing 'emptiness' will either recoil with horror or become dangerously nihilistic increasing his own delusion. Even in the early Buddhist canon stated that the Buddha taught the results and rewards of good actions to lay people, encouraging them to be generous, and assuring them that they will reap the fruits of their actions. To more advance practitioners he cultivates their concentration and wisdom, finally pointing out that things are impermanent and not self. You need to know the basic goal of becoming enlightened before you realize there is never an end to the practice.

No person has ever saved all sentient beings or emptied the hells,
  including any Buddhas. It would be expected a Buddha would teach what
  is possible & achievable. A person that has not completed their Path
  cannot be a Buddha.

As pointed out, no person can ever be 'perfectly' enlightened either. The Mahayana Buddhists know their goal is not truly possible just as even the goals of the Theravada - extinction of rebirth is not truly possible.

If some or all Buddhas teach an enlightenment without Arhants, who in
  turn teach an enlightenment without Arhants, how this is any different
  to Arhantship, just under a different name?

In truth the names Bodhisattvas, Arhats, Buddhas are merely labels. But the distinction is the connotations that each term refers to. Arahant implies an end state to the practice. Bodhisattvas indicates that there are actually no end state, hence you can have an unenlightened bodhisattva as most beings are, or a Great Bodhisattva with immense practice. A 'Buddha' implies 'perfection' even as there is no real perfection.

[b]"As pointed out, no person can ever be 'perfectly' enlightened either. The Mahayana Buddhists know their goal is not truly possible just as even the goals of the Theravada - extinction of rebirth is not truly possible."[/b] If your above sentence is correct, then Buddha must be lying to us... again, same here [b]"A 'Buddha' implies 'perfection' even as there is no real perfection"[/b]

Don't go around saying Buddha is lying to us. It's bad karma and you are only increasing your own delusion.

Hello honourable Yinxu, you think that you are correct?! Therefore, the buddha must be wrong?!! You can't even read the meaning of my comment.

You don't understand my post either. Honestly your sentence isn't well structured so it's hard to tell that you were being sarcastic. And sarcasm isn't Right Speech. The Buddha is correct, as the Diamond sutra would say: There is no perfection, that is why it's called perfection.

"The Buddha is correct, as the Diamond sutra would say: There is no perfection, that is why it's called perfection." (terrible english translation). So Honourable Yinxu, you think your speech = the Diamond Sutra, therefore you can write "A 'Buddha' implies 'perfection' even as there is no real perfection"??! You can't even read the Diamond Sutra. It's horrible for someone to go around saying you 'make' "bad karma"... worst some even said 'you will go to Narakas' when they are disagreed... OK. This is my last comment on yours. I choose to avoid entanglement. Thank you for your response.

@Bhumishu Enlightenment is very possible. You have no faith for the great vow?

Why did the buddha teach the mahayana?

Because Buddha knows that there are ready students for the Mahayana; same as there are ready students for the Theravada; same for Hinayana. As A BUDDHA, HE is able to teach any truth/doctrine. The Four Noble Truths is one of the fundamental teachings in Mahayana, it's not exclusive for Theravada only. If you read the Lotus Sutra (translated by Kumarajiva into Chinese), a chapter told that this Lotus Sutra was taught in the previous-previous sermon by the previous-previous Buddha. Buddha Prabhutaratna (many-treasures), the Buddha who had entered Nirvana eons of kalpas ago, appeared, and sat together with Buddha Shakyamuni inside the Prabhutaratna Stupa for this sermon of the Lotus Sutra...
Another chapter used a metaphor, to "lure" the sons leaving the burning house, the rich father said there were vehicles adorned with treasures drawn by cows, deers and etc waiting at the entrance. In fact, the father would like to give all the sons the great vehicles with most of the treasures because he was very very rich and loving.
Since all beings are the buddha-to-be; and was in essence a buddha, thus maybe you would give teaching in the time-to-be, it would be the same truth but told in the way that dictated by your audiences ;)

I completely what if answer. What if the 'mind stream' only truly makes sense when someone says that svabhava exists. And the mahayana is to realign that into 'buddha nature', awareness etc..
So the Buddha had to teach non mahayana doctrine so that sentient beings could recognize what is later revealed as lacking substance.

Buddha did not teach either Mahayana nor Theravada. There is no Theravada Canon, it is the Pali Canon, and it is canonical for all Buddhists. However, the difference is that Mahayana treats later Sutras as canon, Theravada treats commentary and Abhidhamma as canonical, differently than in other schools. The difference between the two is which apocryphal literature is accepted.
There is a significant difference between a Buddha and an Arahant. Arahant can still carry wrong views from their past due to ignorance. This can happen with the equivalent Bodhisattvas-to-be on the Mahayana path as well. A Buddha has comprehensive knowledge and right view.
So I encourage you to explore basic doctrine and see which makes the most sense to you, and follow that. A teacher and Sangha might help too.

Hi! I think it is not possible to say that both Mahayana and Theravada accept the whole Pāli Canon. One of the suttas in the PC states that the Buddha left nothing important about dukkha and its cessation as a mystery, while the Mahayana sutras state that part of the Buddha's teaching was only taught to his more advanced disciples. I think both proposition contradict each other.

i believe that most mahayana buddhists use a slight variant on the pali canon, the sutras of a different early school