text:
Are all Buddhists vegetarian?
Most if not all Buddhists I know are vegetarian or vegan. Thinking about the precepts this is not surprising - one should abstain from killing. However is this universally true in all Buddhist traditions? Are there some Buddhist traditions that emphasize vegetarianism more than others? For instance I believe the Tibetans were originally pastoral farmers which wouldn't lend itself to vegetarianism naturally.
So is Buddhist vegetarianism universal, specific to tradition or culture, or a lot more flexible than that?

No, they are not. However if you want to read a wonderful book on this very topic, please check out "The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights" by Norm Phelps.

Buddha said "If there is a dead body, it can be eaten", it does not mean to kill, but over the time language changes, people changes.

Very much not the case, so long as you don't engage in a No true Scotsman fallacy and say that they aren't really Buddhists unless they are also vegetarian.
In some traditions it is common for a begging monk to eat whatever is put in their offering bowl, mixing it together first (see the interview with Achaan Chaa in Living Dharma).
For laypeople the provision is against engaging in the business of meat as it says in Vanijja Sutta, AN 5:177:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in."

There's little that I am aware of, at least from the Pali Canon, that addresses meat eating for laypeople. Even monks get a pass in some circumstances on this as well, as it says in The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople:

The Buddha did allow bhikkhus to eat meat and fish[88] except under
  the following circumstances:

If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him,
    he may not eat it.[89] (M.I,369)

This is clarified with footnote 90 with the following cited quote:

The flesh of animals which have been slaughtered to sell as meat for
  the people, however, is called 'flesh which exists already.' [It] has
  been slaughtered for their meat to be used for food by one person or
  by a group of people, apart from fellow Dhamma friends, or specially
  for the butcher himself… If people cook such meat and offer it to a
  bhikkhu, [it] will not be an offence to accept and eat it.

Citing The Entrance to the Vinaya, (Vinayamukha), volume 2, pages 131—133.
It should be emphasized that these are predominantly guidelines for monks, not for lay practitioners.
This gets further modified depending on the specific tradition. His Holiness 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, simply try to lessen the amount of impact or the amount of meat eaten, and I have seen quite a few Vajrayana practitioners eat meat.
Many other sects have de-emphasized the need for vegetarianism depending on the local conditions and the history of that specific sect.
Basically: Even among monks the following of vegetarianism is not absolute and it isn't even clear that restrictions on that order exist for lay followers in a lot of different Buddhist traditions.

It looks like a Buddhist should not himself kill & prepare the meat nor should he have an animal killed & cooked just for him. If it was killed & cooked for someone else and was offered to him, it is okay to eat. In today's case, every meat we eat in restaurants wasn't exclusively prepared for us. So we can eat it. Seems more like an excuse to eat meat than anything rational.

That is roughly the justification I've seen many Buddhists use, but it depends on tradition the exact nature of it. For example, Ganachakra (Tantric feasts) can involve eating meat and drinking alcohol, though as the expression goes "you drink because of the ritual, you don't do the ritual to drink."

While I think there's a lot of interesting substance to this discussion, it would be best if it moved to chat.

Among my own school (Nyingma from Tibetan Buddhism), encouraging vegetarianism is a relatively recent trend, mostly grounded on the teachings of Patrul Rinpoche, who lived in the 19th century and was a vegetarian. Still, the main reason for encouraging his students to become vegetarians was mostly because he was often horrified at how teachers and self-proclaimed 'great practitioners' spent all their time gobbling meat. His descriptions on The Words of My Perfect Teacher are quite vivid and graphical — bordering on 'gore'. He certainly pointed that as one of the worst possible examples to set for others to follow — being more worried about one's next (meat) meal instead of worrying about one's practice. So the focus was set much less on 'vegetarianism' (as a form of ideology as it is popular today) but more in 'don't worry so much with your food; worry instead about your practice'.
Tibetans, in their vast majority, are not vegetarian — because you simply cannot grow many vegetables in the vast frigid plains of Tibet (technically 'deserts'), but the naturally-growing grass there would lend itself to raising goats. Nevertheless, because of the strong influence that many Mahayana schools have world-wide (specially Zen), which are more strict about vegetarianism, many leading Vajrayana teachers are slowly becoming vegetarians and encouraging their students to do the same. Again, the focus is not strictly about 'eating killed animals' (although that is certainly one of the strong arguments in favour as well), but much more about 'worrying about the practice, not about tasty meals'.
HH the Dalai Lama, for example, has a medical condition that disallows him to be a strict vegetarian. Nevertheless, he attempted at least twice to become one — finding more important to abstain from meat than to worry about his own health — with the consequence of almost dying from that. So his doctor currently forces him to continue to eat meat with some regularity, which he grudgingly does, against his wishes — because he also understands that keeping his health in order to teach and help more people during a longer period is more important than following a strict vegetarian diet just because vegetarianism is popular as an ideology and as a precept to refrain from getting more animals killed (I understand that he has been reducing his meat consumption to a bare minimum, at levels that don't interfere with his health).
The issue is really very complex. Among my main five teachers, two are strict vegetarians (one of them since birth, for cultural reasons — he was born in India in a region where vegetarianism is the norm. The other made a decision to become a vegetarian, following Patrul Rinpoche's guidelines). Two others are 'strict carnivores' — they refuse to eat anything with vegetables in it (seriously!), which is always a reason for plenty of laughing when someone tries to offer them some vegetarian dish. And a fifth one, probably my main teacher, is often a vegetarian for several years, then goes back to a more mixed diet for another few years, and back to vegetarianism. Since all of them are most excellent teachers, and explain Dharma in absolutely the same way, obviously this is a clear case where it becomes much more a 'personal' choice than a rigid precept that has to be followed no matter what. I specially like the attitude of my closest, main teacher. I think that his lesson to me is that we shouldn't be attached to ideologies — neither vegetarianism, nor anti-vegetarianism — and that's why he switches from one side to the other, to make his students think about what is really important in their lives. Most of the retreats he organises are strict vegetarian, even if he is not in a 'vegetarian' phase. But sometimes they're not.
Still, not being a teacher myself, I would certainly encourage vegetarianism to anyone who finds the thought of having animals killed for the pleasure of their meals, and who truly understand the importance of being a vegetarian for the right reasons — not to 'preach'; not to feel 'superior' to others (because you can abstain from meat, while others, poor weakly-minded, deluded beings, cannot); not to blindly 'follow orders'; much less to 'please' a teacher or 'impress' a group of practitioners; but because you can turn your vegetarianism option into practice (or because vegetarianism helps you in your practice, by focusing on the thought that billions of animals — from insects to whales — die every day). If you're doing exactly that, and it is really helping your practice, then please, stick to vegetarianism!
I would also claim that — unfortunately — beginners will have a lot of misconceptions about Buddhism, so a new teacher who is not a vegetarian might be thought of being 'fake'. Instead of long-winded discussions about vegetarianism vs. non-vegetarianism, I can imagine that a good teacher would be truly unattached to what he or she eats — and they might simply opt for vegetarianism because, that way, they will earn the respect of more students who happen to think that 'all Buddhists are vegetarians'.

Devadatta, a relative of the Buddha, at one point attempted to cause a schism in the sangha by asking the Buddha to implement 13 ascetic rules for all monks, one of those rules being vegetarianism. The Buddha in his wisdom decided against forcing these rules on all monks and instead stated that any monk who wished to take on these rules for their practice may do so.
There is also nothing in the precepts that state anything about eating meat or vegetarianism, although I have been told that in the Mahayana they do add that as part of the precepts and the Bodhisattva vow.
In those days, and also in at least the Theravada tradition, the monks had to eat whatever was given to them as they were/are totally dependent on the laity for support. Today if you wanted to feed Venerable Yuttadhammo and gave him noting but Oreo Cookies, he is bound to eat such food. The one exception being explained in the other post about if an animal is killed just for the monks, then a monk can refuse.
These two links should be very helpful in the discussion regarding Buddhism and vegetarianism:
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/vegi.html

Regarding Oreo cookies; I believe monks who receive alms food show no partiality to any food but would not be bound to eat something non nutritive or harmful simply because it was given.

the Oreos were just an example, but now I'm interested because I've never heard of this non nutritive thing. Any links for that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bHw6MVxdwQ#t=32

I forgot where I heard this, because it has been many years ago:

"One becomes a monk, not just to be vegetarian"

You're not forced not to have meat, but if you decide to devote yourself and stay in a temple, meat isn't what is served daily.
Other words, what if you sneaked out and have meat and get caught?
At certain temple, they don't punish you by expelling you, but most would, if not expel, warn you. Or you would be "punished" and be isolated / assigned to certain task where you carry out the work and at the same time "reflect".
As to why some of the monks still eat meat, smoke, drink alcohol etc:

I can't say all; but what I have seen is when I was backpacking in
  Thailand: In Thailand, when one graduates from high-school, students
  are required to either take part in military or in a temple becoming a
  monk for around 6 months (exact time I have forgotten). Many chose to,
  as was told to me, to become a monk at a temple.
So, those who send themselves to the temple after high school are not
  really those who really would like to follow Buddhism. For what I have
  seen there, some of them smoke, belong to a gang, were involved in
  unlawful activities, etc etc.
Another reason I was told is: some know what they do are bad, those
  who take part in gangs, etc etc, so out of this reason, they "hope" to
  repent and feel "protected". But afterward, they mostly remain where
  they were before they became a monk after high school.
The above is only what I have seen then and was told to me by the
  locals.

So, what it is about becoming a vegetarian being a monk / Buddhist?
You do so gradually, through practice and reading (addendum: please don't be affixed on words and their meaning; they are meant to be guides / guidance).
There is a saying:

"refrain the mouth from meals (meat), but fail to do so at heart (you
  still crave for it; you have to force yourself not to have it)"

That's not what this is about; you don't have to force yourself in / into doing anything in Buddhism.
Through practice and observance and patience, when one has attained eventually understanding, you would stop eating meat or other' being's flesh. It is meant to be a normal transition, if one finally understand "the way" of Buddhism, which involves time, patience, observance, reading / meditating / reflecting.
It comes to you normally and will so eventually, though the practices mentioned above, when one finally understand it.
I was told the following saying many years ago, which I still remember to this day:

"In Buddhism, it is about Destiny, if you so approach it in your
  lifetime, it is Destiny; you choose to believe it and follow it, it is
  Destiny; and if you choose to leave it and betray it, no-one would
  send you out the door, for you are welcome to depart, because no-one
  has held you in it at the first place - it is also Destiny."

Entire books have been written on the topic, "The Great Compassion" is a good one to start with-- it is written from the pro-vegetarian standpoint.
Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese Buddhists are all vegetarians. This is in part because the Bodhisattva vows from the Brahma Net Sutra, which are the vows and precepts that replaced the Indian precepts, explicitly forbids eating animals on several grounds-- for example, if reincarnation happens, then after enough time all animals you might eat at one point in the past were your mother or father.
In the Japanese system, during a period of modernization and anti-Buddhism, attempted a reform to try to bring down the monks in prestige a few notches-- explicitly legalizing monks to eat meat and marry. These reforms stuck, even though they were implemented as part of a larger reform that was hostile to Buddhism.  So the Japanese forms of Buddhism we got from Japan, we'll see that Zen isn't pro-vegetarianism, unless you read about the life of the founders of the sects, who all were vegetarian. So anyhow, the movement away from vegetarianism is driven by Meiji politicians, not monks. Personally, I'll take my direction from Nichiren or Dogen before I give a lot of weight to the Japanese imperial bureaucracy's opinion on the matter.
ref: Meiji edict of April 1872
American Buddhism is a mix of various traditions. Chinese Buddhism, the most strongly vegetarian form of Buddhism, is in general under represented in the US. It's because of this accident of which sects are most visible that makes Buddhism look less vegetarian that it might otherwise be.
All that said, about half of US Buddhist I know are vegetarian. That is 25 times higher than the national rate.

From a Theravada Buddhist perspective one does not have to be a vegetarian since the first precept is not broken if one is buying meat from the e.g. the supermarket or if one is passively revieving food/meat e.g. at family dinners etc.
The following conditions must all be met in order for the  1st precept to be broken:

pano -- presence of a living being
panasannita -- one knows that it is a living being
vadhacittam -- the intention to kill
upakkamo -- the effort to kill
tena maranam -- the resulting death of that being

Here is a video on "Vegetarianism and Killing" by Ven. Yuttadhammo. The video discusses buddhist ethics from a point of view of ultimate reality. It is talked about why killing is unethical and how it affects ones own state of mind and what kind of vegetarianism one could practice.
Here is an interesting article with the title "Life as a Vegetarian Tibetan Buddhist Practitioner - A Personal View" by Eileen Weintraub.
Here is a short quote from the article:

"... It was not until the mid-1970s that mainstream Tibetan lamas started visiting America. Often their first contacts were with people from other Eastern spiritual traditions. American disciples were attracted to Tibetan Buddhism and migrated over from the mostly vegetarian Hindu traditions, including yoga and Transcendental Meditation practitioners. Did the Tibetans try to change their own meat-based diets? Did they try to embrace a new healthy, ethically conscious diet that was now available to them? More commonly the reverse happened—many Westerners graciously embraced the Tibetan diet. Students who were used to eating salads, brown rice and tofu learned to cook and eat lamb, beef and other Tibetan-style dishes to please their teachers... ".

Lanka

Vegetarianism is mostly practiced in Mahayana Buddhism I believe. It's probably because of the Hindu and Jain influence.
Theravada tradition follows the word of the Buddha. i.e. It's totally up to the food preference of the individual.
Ironically, Devadatta is the one who demanded from the Buddha that all monks should be vegetarian. I believe Hitler was vegetarian too. But didn't he kill 1000s of humans?
1st precept is what the lay people have to keep to.
Following conditions have to be met for it to be broken.
i) The being must be alive.
ii) There must be knowledge that it is a living being.
iii) There must be intention to cause its death.
iv) Action must be taken to cause its death
v) Death must result from such action.
If all these conditions are fulfilled, then the precept has been
broken.
Buying meat products from a shop doesn't break any of these, let alone all.

Yes, maybe Mahayana Buddhists recommend vegetarianism  than Theravada. I've seen Zen Buddhists being Vegetarian & Zen is Mahayana.

And you seem to make this question a vegetarian vs non-vegetarian debate. I don't see how pointing out Hitler was a vegetarian adds value to the answer. Hitler was not a Buddhist.

Theravada Buddhism doesn't recommend any food preference. It only recommends the monks to be easily maintainable.

Yes, the precepts don't recommend but what I meant is monks who infer from the Buddhist teachings on non-violence do at times.

Have a citation for this? It looks like it is coming from somewhere, but it isn't clear what the source of these conditions is.

Eating meat has nothing to do with non-violence or violence.

@Hrafn: Added a link to the title

Hmm.. so meat came out of thin air? It was a result of a 'killing'. Killing causes Dukha. Let it be that eating meat isn't violence but preparing it is. That is what I meant by 'interpreting' Buddhist teachings.     Maybe in a Buddhist country the one person with a lots of bad karma is a butcher.

I recommend that the discourse over the necessity or lack thereof be taken to chat. Comments are not an ideal vehicle for this sort of debate, but work better as a way to ask quick clarifying questions that may lead to edits.

If that is true, vegetables don't come out of thin air either. Many animals die in vegetarian food production. So preparing vegetarian food causes Dukkha too. :)

I don't understand the mentioning of Hitler either. Are you trying to say that vegetarians are not necessarily humane?
What about those many many more killers other than Hitler? Can we conclude that non-vegetarians are more likely to kill than vegetarians then?

No we can't conclude that! I gave that example just to point out that food preference has nothing to do with non-violence.

So one could eat pig ears and tails from living pigs, or fingers from humans? That's usually not very nice.

Punching or flogging a person isn't nice either. It causes bad Karma. But it doesn't break the 1st precept. It only weakens it. The only bad Karma you can get by eating meat bought from the market is the karma caused due to your craving for the taste. But that is common for vegetarian food as well.

Not all, only Mahayana Buddhists are required to be in normal conditions.
In Theravada Buddhism:

The Buddha forbids the eating of 10 meats (humans, elephants, horses,
dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, panthers, bears, hyenas ) and says:

"And let no one, O Bhikkhus, eat meat without having enquired (what it is). He who does, commits a dukkata offence" (Mahavogga 6.23)

Wrong Livelihood part of the Eightfold path includes things like hunting, fishing, etc...
The Buddha refuses Devadatta's request that monks not be allowed to eat fish
The Buddha explains that meat can be eaten under three conditions

"I say, that meat could be partaken on three instances, when not seen,
  not heard and when there is no doubt about it." (Jivaka Sutta, MN 55)

But then explains the five conditions when one gains demerit:

"If he said, go bring that living thing of such name.  In this first
  instance he accumulates much demerit.
If that living thing is pulled along, tied, with pain at the throat,
  feeling displeased and unpleasant.  In this second instance he
  accumulates much demerit.
If it was said, go kill that animal.  In this third instance he
  accumulates much demerit.
When killing if that animal feels displeased and unpleasant.  In this
  fourth instance he accumulates, much demerit.
When the Tathagatha or a disciple of the Tathagatha tastes that
  unsuitable food.  In this fifth instance he accumulates much demerit." (Jivaka Sutta)

So in my opinion Theravada Buddhism seems to be encouraging vegetarianism or veganism but not requiring it (remember any doubts about demerit means don't eat the meat).
Also one part of virtue for monks is:

"He abstains from damaging seed and plant life." (Apannaka Sutta, MN
  60)

Certainly vegetarians and vegans don't abstain from damaging seed and plant life.
In Mahayana Buddhism:

"After my tranquility, in the Dharma-ending Age, these hordes of
  ghosts and spirits will abound, spreading like wildfire as they argue
  that eating meat will bring one to the Bodhi Way.
"Ánanda, I permit the Bhikshus to eat five kinds of pure meat. This
  meat is actually a transformation brought into being by my spiritual
  powers. It basically has no life force. You Brahmans live in a climate
  so hot and humid, and on such sandy and rocky land, that vegetables
  will not grow; therefore, I have had to assist you with spiritual
  powers and compassion. Because of this magnanimous kindness and
  compassion, this so-called meat suits your taste. After my extinction,
  how can those who eat the flesh of beings be called the disciples of
  Shakya?
"You should know that these people who eat meat may gain some
  awareness and may seem to be in samádhi, but they are all great
  rakshasas. When their retribution ends, they are bound to sink into
  the bitter sea of birth and death. They are not disciples of the
  Buddha. Such people as these kill and eat one another in a
  never-ending cycle. How can such people transcend the Triple Realm?
"When you teach people of the world to cultivate samádhi, they must
  also cut off killing. This is the second clear and decisive
  instruction on purity given by the Thus Come Ones, the Buddhas of the
  Past, World Honored Ones. (Shurangama Sutra)
"Previously,I taught this in cases arising from the needs of the
  situation. Now, on this occasion, I teach the harm arising from
  meat-eating." (Mahaparinirvana Sutra)

Mahayanists believed that The Buddha allowed meat-eating during his time in special conditions which no longer apply. During The Buddha's time monks had to beg to get food and without food humans die! Certainly monks living independently that have to produce their own food (rather than begging as was during The Buddha's time) would have to kill animals to gain meat, which would violate Theravada Buddhism as well.
Mahayanists also argue that The Buddha used supernormal powers to avoid the negative effects of meat-eating which the majority of monks in modern times cannot do.
I guess I understand both sides of the argument, obviously if you have to produce your own food you would have to kill animals to get meat (or wait for them to naturally die which would be too rare).
I don't personally stress or encourage vegetarianism or veganism. I've personally found that things like caffeine have a much more negative effect on the brain than meat-eating.
From my own personal observations there may be some conditions when eating meat causes demerit and others when not (similar to what The Buddha says) but other things seem to matter much more so I don't focus on it much and still eat meat.

The most famous living Buddhist, Dalai Lama eats non-vegetarian dishes. The reasoning for this is he had said there's not much vegetables grown in Tibet. So to be specific Buddhism does not encourage killing animals, but on specific occasions (Ex: there is no food other than meat) it is permitted as food, though they are not supposed to waste any meat. Buddhist monks have to travel from place to place and have to take up whatever available for their living.

The current version of that Wikipedia links says that his reason is, his doctors ordered him to eat meat on alternating days. See also This attracted public attention when, during a visit to the White House, he was offered a vegetarian menu but declined by replying, as he is known to do on occasion when dining in the company of non-vegetarians, "I'm a Tibetan monk, not a vegetarian".[62] His own home kitchen, however, is completely vegetarian.[63].

May I add another thought all of the good answers provided so far?  This is what Kassapa Buddha said (as per the scriptures) on this issue. Kassapa Buddha is the sixth of the Seven Buddhas of Antiquity, and the third of the five Buddhas of the present kalpa.
Sutta Nipata 2.2: Here the Buddha recalled an incident in his previous life during the Buddha Kassapa’s time. Buddha Kassapa was his teacher then. It was an occasion when an external sect ascetic met the Buddha Kassapa and reviled him for eating meat, which he said is a stench compared to eating vegetarian food.
Buddha Kassapa replied: “Killing … wounding … stealing, lying, deceiving … adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat… Those who are rude, arrogant, backbiting, treacherous, unkind … miserly … this is stench. Not the eating of meat… Anger, pride, obstinacy, antagonism, deceit, envy, boasting … this is stench. Not the eating of meat… Those who are of bad morals, … slanderous … pretentious … being the vilest of men, commit such wrong things; this is stench. Not the eating of meat ….”

Meat eating involves two rounds of killing sentient beings. First, insects and other small animals are killed when lands are cleared to grown the grains to feed animals.  Then we kill the animals for their meat.
Vegan diet involves only one round of killing when the lands are cleared to plant the crops.

good food for thought, but this is not answering the question.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. As Anthony have mentioned the answer does not answer OP's question. Could you be a more specific regarding  the main part of the question which is "... is Buddhist vegetarianism universal, specific to tradition or culture, or a lot more flexible than that?... " Thank you.

Important to have a good heart. Buddhists can be vegetarian, provided the heart is also  "vegetarian". One can be a vegetarian but if the heart is not "vegetarian",  then being vegetarian is useless.

Being vegetarian is one's choice.
If the meat is killed for some person to consume -- and not particularly oneself -- and one buys it, then it is OK to buy and consume: i.e., you went to a butcher's shop and buy what is already there.
If there are reasons to believe that it is killed with you in mind, then it not suitable as it will taint your mind.
Pre-ordering meats may also not be acceptable, as the animals may be killed to fill your order -- in which case you are directly contributing to the death of the animal.
If you are a regular to a butcher's shop, and the butcher keeps a good cut of meat for you, then again it might not be appropriate: as the butcher is killing and setting aside a part of the animal with you particularly in mind. Here one's mind will get tainted, as one might suspect the animal was killed for oneself.

"killed with a particular person in mind", maybe Upasaka meant "killed for one". There would be fault for the recipient/buyer, if someone kills an animal, say for his child" and later changes mind and offers someone. So it's maybe just not best formulated. (Maybe Upasaka likes to take more time for making valuable answers more accessable).

"If the meat is killed for some person to consume and one buys it, then it is OK." also here. Maybe "if an animal has been killed not thought for one, then buying may have no share on the harmful act before. Aside: "ok" with killing would be an approve, mental kamma!

I made some changes. Can Ven. Sir or some one else edit this for better wording while preserving meaning and intent.

Nyom @ChrisW always rejoices in good deeds and has good skills in formulating, not to say loving to increase his stacks here.

In this case I could edit the grammar but I'm not sure of the meaning and intent (the subject is outside my own experience). If you're looking for specific wording, one way to might be to quote a reference -- e.g. a sutta, or an explanation of a relevant fragment of the vinaya.

Is the grammar / spelling correct?

I thought the grammar was fine -- correct enough -- easy to understand. I think  Samana Johann was commenting on the wording of "killed for some person to consume", and was suggesting a change like, "not killed for you in particular to consume". Other suggestions instead of that phrase might (I'm not sure) be, "killed for anyone to consume", or, "killed for someone else to consume."

The diet of a Buddhist is His business alone. And a Good Buddhist should welcome well-thought out, compassionately offered instruction from a guru or equally trustworthy source of knowledge . If you ask the opinion of a delusional self-cherishing being you will get a delusional answer. Best to ask a monastic.


text:
How is sexual misconduct explained in regards to the five precepts?
The 3rd precept is:

I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct.

How is this precept explained?
Marriage is defined differently in different cultures, so are the commonly accepted rules in a given society considered as non-misconduct? If not, how should one determine the scope of misconduct according to the precept?

Buddhist are advised to stay celibate until they get married and limit themselves to one partner afterwards. That should probably close any possible loopholes one might try to find in the 3rd precept.

Sankha what your sources for this? There were Buddhists who practiced polygamy in the past. Marriage , I.e. a formal ceremony is not mandatory and there are no set marriage rituals in Buddhism. Also there is the story of a sotapanna girl who ran off with a man whom her parents disapproved of.

In MN 41 (and elsewhere), the Buddha describes sexual misconduct as follows:

He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal.
(Ñanamoli, Trans)

The commentary explains this passage as follows:

Māturakkhitātiādīsu yaṃ pitari naṭṭhe vā mate vā ghāsacchādanādīhi paṭijaggamānā, vayapattaṃ kulaghare dassāmīti mātā rakkhati, ayaṃ māturakkhitā nāma. Etenupāyena piturakkhitādayopi veditabbā. Sabhāgakulāni pana kucchigatesupi gabbhesu katikaṃ karonti – ‘‘sace mayhaṃ putto hoti, tuyhaṃ dhītā, aññattha gantuṃ na labhissati, mayhaṃ puttasseva hotū’’ti. Evaṃ gabbhepi pariggahitā sassāmikā nāma. ‘‘Yo itthannāmaṃ itthiṃ gacchati, tassa ettako daṇḍo’’ti evaṃ gāmaṃ vā gehaṃ vā vīthiṃ vā uddissa ṭhapitadaṇḍā, pana saparidaṇḍā nāma. Antamaso mālāguṇaparikkhittāpīti yā sabbantimena paricchedena, ‘‘esā me bhariyā bhavissatī’’ti saññāya tassā upari kenaci mālāguṇaṃ khipantena mālāguṇamattenāpi parikkhittā hoti.

Rough translation:

In the case where the father is gone, or the mother provides support such as food and clothing, the mother guards [her] thinking "I will give [her] to a good family when she comes of age." This is called "protected by the mother". By the same means "protected by the father", etc., should be understood.
When families come together and, even when the fetuses have just reached the womb, make an agreement - "If I have a son and you a daughter, let there be no getting to go to another; let her be for my son." Even in the case of a fetus that is protected thus, it is called "having a husband".
"Whoever goes to a woman of such and such a name, such a penalty is for him." Thus, a penalty is established by a village or a house, or a street; this is called "as entail a penalty."
"Even to the extent of those who are garlanded" - to the last extreme of all, with the perception that "This woman will be my wife", by tossing some garland over her head, there is "those that are garlanded".

Soooo, it doesn't seem all that culturally dependent. Some points of note are:

Polygamy isn't included in the precept at all;
State-condoned prostitution doesn't seem to be considered immoral either. Illegal prostitution is considered wrong, but only because of the penalty it brings.
Infidelity doesn't appear either; in the Sigalovada Sutta however, the Buddha says that a wife is to be attended to "by being faithful to her". It seems likely, therefore, that the reverse of the description here is to be considered as implied; if you are in any one of the protected situations yourself, engaging in a breach, even with a woman who is not so guarded, would be immoral.

Basically, the point is that breaching an existing relationship, including parental guardianship, is a breach of the precept. It doesn't seem likely that this would be affected by cultural norms; as the Buddha notes, as long as there is a claim and it is breached, it is wrong sexuality.
It's worth noting, of course, that in (Theravada) Buddhism all intentional sexual activity is inherently immoral; this precept just attempts to lay down some general principles for those unable to commit to celibacy.

"It's worth noting, of course, that in Buddhism all intentional sexual activity is inherently immoral; this precept just attempts to lay down some general principles for those unable to commit to celibacy." Can you give a citation for that?

Any mind state associated with sensual desire is inherently unwholesome; I guess if you could intentionally have sex without desire, it wouldn't be unwholesome, but for all intents and purposes, sex is unwholesome.

I'm not asking about your opinion, I am asking for a source to back up the statement that "all intentional sexual activity is inherently immoral" according to buddhist doctrine. (Also, you just switched from "immoral" to "unwholesome", which are rather different terms.)

I wasn't really stating a personal opinion. Immoral and unwholesome are two translations of the same concept in Buddhism. I guess a quick source off the top of my head would be the Buddha's words that all arahants live a life of complete celibacy.

Then I think the translations deserve some closer scrutiny/discussion to conclude on the original intent, as "unewholesome" does not neccesarily imply immoral. Thank you for clarifying.

In Theravada Buddhism, immoral and unwholesome are indeed interchangeable; on an ultimate level they refer to the same thing.

Infidelity is included in the 4th precept directly. Breaking promise is breaking  4th precept, liar.

In short, sexual misconduct means performing any sexual act that will be harmful to yourself and/or others. Just because the act is consensual does not necessarily mean it won't hurt someone, as example in the case of adultery, the two people performing the act may consent to it, but it hurts another person and family. If the spouse consents and/or participates(like swinger couples for example), then it is not considered misconduct.
The Buddha advised against sexual activity with those who are "under the protection" of their family(minors), a promised or engaged person, dhamma(monks/nuns) etc.

"He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no
intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or
mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor
female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls."

These are all situations that can cause much wide ranging trouble beyond the couple engaged in the act.
This link may be helpful for learning more about the 3rd precept, as there is much more to this precept then sexual misconduct.
From Buddhism and Sex by M. O'C. Walshe:

"What precisely, then, does the Third Precept imply for the ordinary
lay Buddhist? Firstly, in common with all the other precepts, it is a
rule of training. It is not a "commandment" from God, the Buddha, or
anyone else saying: "Thou shalt not..." There are no such commandments
in Buddhism. It is an undertaking by you to yourself, to do your best
to observe a certain type of restraint, because you understand that it
is a good thing to do. This must be clearly understood. If you don't
think it is a good thing to do, you should not undertake it. If you do
think it is a good thing to do, but doubt your ability to keep it, you
should do your best, and probably, you can get some help and
instruction to make it easier. If you feel it is a good thing to
attempt to tread the Buddhist path, you may undertake this and the
other precepts, with sincerity, in this spirit.
Secondly, what is the scope and purpose of this precept? The word kama
means in Pali "sensual desire," which is not exclusively sexual. It is
here used in a plural form which comes close to what is meant by the
Biblical expression "the lusts of the flesh." Greed for food and other
sensual pleasure is also included. Most people who are strongly
addicted to sexual indulgence are also much drawn to other
sense-pleasures. Though we are here only concerned with the sexual
aspect, this point should be noted. For those with any grasp at all of
Buddhist principles, the basic reason for such an injunction should be
immediately obvious. Our dukkha — our feeling, of frustration and
dissatisfaction with life — is rooted in our desires and cravings. The
more these can be brought under control, the less dukkha we shall
experience. It is as simple as that. But of course, that which is
simple is not necessarily easy."

The meaning of third precept is that one's actions must never be motivated by desire of sensual pleasure.
The Pali text for third precept says:

Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi is a standard phrase that means "I undertake the training rule to abstain from ..."
The key therefore is Kāmesumicchācāra, or, parsed out, Kamesu-Micchacara.
Kam-e-su is usually translated as "sexual" and Miccha-cara as "misconduct". Such a translation, however, is severely misreading a simple literal phrase.
Miccha, the antonym of samma, generally means "wrong", "low quality", "sloppy" and literally "opposite", "contrary". Cara means "conduct", or literally "going about", "walking". So far so good.
Kama, the root of kamesu, is often translated "lust" or "sensual pleasure" but its more precise meaning is fondness (combining such elements as love, desire, and taking pleasure in) for an object of material senses -- in other words "sensual fondness" -- not sexual but sensual!
The key to understanding this phrase though is -e-su in Kam-e-su, which gives it the meaning of "out of".
Together, the phrase reads "Misbehaving out of sensual fondness" (or "Going astray out of ..."). This gives it a very different meaning than "sexual misconduct".
The idea is, when one's mind is obsessed by an object of sensual pleasure, one's ability to reason about results and side-effects of one's acts gets severely impaired. One is then prone to making bad decisions, creating suffering for oneself and others. Instead, one should never act out of mere "sensual fondness"! One should act out of right understanding, out of compassion etc.

-esu is a plural locative ending, so a literal translation would be “in sensual fondness/pleasure”, and we can interpret it as “in the cases/situations of sensual fondness/pleasure”. Do you have any examples of locatives being used for stating reasons (“out of”)?

Although not quantitatively appreciated, this is the qualitatively proper approach and right answer. Kāmesumicchācārā is not translated as sexual misconduct, but as the misconduct of actions motivated by sensual pleasure.

with regard to locative in general, it does not confer only the meaning of something being "in". many confusions arise in translations because of this narrowing down of the sense it takes. as the term locative suggests, it references a "location" and when it comes to mental phenomena it can be translated using "with regard to", "reffering to" or "concerning". for the subject at hand, useful expressions would be "having as purpose", "directed at" or "motivated by". so a thorough translation of the concept of kāmesumicchācārā would be the wrongful behaviour of pursuing sensual pleasures

the suttas are literal in referring the precept to sexuality rather than general sensuality

Sīlabbata-parāmāso is a fetter. Sīlabbata-parāmāso means, morality based on conformity to a social or religious standard of behavior. Based on this I would not compare the precept to "the commonly accepted rules in the society".
Combing two other answers,

In short, sexual misconduct means performing any sexual act that will be harmful to yourself and/or others.

and

The meaning of third precept is that one's actions must never be motivated by desire of sensual pleasure.

These two go hand in hand. When an individual is motivated by desire or sensual pleasure it can often be at the expense of hurting themselves and others.

I wouldn't wanna jam up the question list. In addition to what have been asked, I would like to top up. What about consensual sex? 1. Both are in a relationship but unmarried. 2. Both are single and agreed to have sex?

@Sunset_Limited That is only breaking the precept if you have taken a vow of celibacy, i.e., you are an ordained monk. Or like yuttadhammo said, if they are under the care of someone else and that person does not consent.

With all due consideration,
Kāmesu-micchācārā is not translated as sexual misconduct, but as the misconduct of actions motivated by sensual pleasure. And the Pali terms for wanting sensual pleasure abound in the Buddha Dhamma for wrongful phenomena that are to be abandoned and prevented from arising, such as the hindrance kamacchanda desire for sense pleasure, abhijjha yearning, lobha wishing, raga lust, tanha craving, all of them rather interchangeably translated as phenomena driven by the pursuit of sensual pleasure.
The entire Teaching of the Enlightened One revolves around the concept of annihilating sensual pleasure. Kamatanha, craving for sensual pleasure, is the root of all suffering. The cessation of suffering comes with the elimination of this very craving. On the Noble Eightfold Path, the step of right intention starts with nekkhamma-sankappo, thoughts free from sensual pleasure while right concentration begins with vivicceva  kamehi, detached from sensual pleasure.
Any attempt at reducing the meaning of kāmesu-micchācārā to any form of particular sexual misconduct is just an excuse for hiding from the truth and distorting the true doctrine, fueled by attachment to precisely sense pleasure. And as a proper characterization of this tendency, it belongs to the category of mental fetters called sīlabbata-parāmāsa, namely, valuing or holding in high regard false systems of morality.
Respectfully

This answer requires Sutta support because the Sutta definition of this matter was already provided by Yuttadhammo Bhikkkhu to mean sexual misconduct by men with various women.

I'd say "would benefit from" or "might be clearer with", instead of "requires" Sutta support. On this site, references to suttas are welcome but not "required".

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
What are Buddha-fields and Dharma-fields in Buddhism? What roles do they play in various lineages?
Recently, I heard the terms Buddha-fields and Dharma-fields.  It was explained as a place to do good deeds for gaining good karma.  However, I'm not sure about the explanation or what it means.  What are Buddha-fields and Dharma-fields?  What role do they play in Buddhism?

The term Buddha-field is a literal translation of a compound Sanskrit word Buddhakṣētra, which is composed of two words Buddha (literal meaning: awakened one) and kṣētra (literal meaning: field, area, or tract of land).  The term Buddha in Buddhism may referred to someone who has realized enlightenment or to Siddhartha Gautama,  however these meanings are not necessarily mutually exclusive from each other and the emphasized meaning is based on context.  Kṣētra is used to denote a sacred space or precinct where a temple, shrine, or place where a sacred person is held or an event occurred in that particular location commemorating religious or historical importance.   The term Kṣētra may generally be used to mark a physical location with religious significance associated with pilgrimage, yet it may also be used to indicate abstract phenomena of conscious realizations independently or simultaneously associated with a physical location, a narrative, sacred art (like a yantra or mandala), or another dimension in space and time.
The term Buddhakṣētra or Buddha-field may be applied to a multitude of conventional understandings within the context of Buddhist traditions such as Pure Land, Merit Field, Refuge Tree, and Mandala just to name a few.  Yet all these terms all have the same underline meaning of a sacred space in which a sentient being encounters a buddha through the practice of the dharma in a physical environment, an abstract environment or simultaneously in an environment conjoining the physical and abstract.
Relatively the Buddha-field may be experience in the present moment:
During a recent seminar, Karmapa Trinley Thaye Dorje had the following to say about Pure Lands or Buddha-fields:

“I’m just using the term “Pure Land” to interest you all, but
  basically I will be talking about the same old Buddha dharma…   All
  the great, extremely wonderful descriptions of the Pure Land are
  mentioned so that the practitioner will do whatever is necessary to
  develop a clear and well-structured mindset.  But once we have such a
  mindset then the Pure Land is very much right here and now..”

The earliest known references to a Buddha-field may be found in the avadānas that associate religious practices associated with events held at  stūpas.  “The avadānas (Pali: apadānas) added three important ideas associated with the Buddha-field: (1) the Buddha-field surrounding a relic of the buddha is equally fertile to that surrounding a living Buddha; (2) there are innumerable Buddha-fields in every direction beyond the limits of our cosmos; and (3) a Buddha-field is absolutely necessary to the path of Awakening, for only by planting a merit-seed in such a field can one embark on the path of Awakening at all.  Thus the Buddha-field becomes the ground from which further awakened beings will grow.”1
In India during the early development of Buddhism, the practitioner would make vows and leave gifts at a stūpa to plant the seeds of merit for a future rebirth to reach nirvāna, which for the practitioner was an encounter with a Buddha-field both physically and meta-physically.2   These early acts of devotion inspired by avadānas teachings laid the framework for further elaboration of Buddhakṣētra found in one form or another in Theravādin devotionalism, Mahāyāna teachings, Pure Land Buddhism, and Vajrayana devotionalism and teachings.

Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction First Edition pg 70
Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction First Edition pg 71

Did you just answer your own question? Curious.

@PFS32 Sometimes...  Depends if I want to do more research on the topic and I'll just share what I discovered...

They may have been referring to "fields of merit"--our parents, our sangha, the poor, etc. Basically, they are wherever we have the opportunity to do good deeds (meritorious actions) so we produce good karma (merit) for the benefit of ourselves and others, living or dead.
Here is a small booklet (PDF) outlining how to reap and sow these "fields" through meritorious action:
http://www.beyondthenet.net/thedway/nyanadassana-ebooks/ten%20ways%20of%20making%20merit.pdf

Giving or generosity (Dāna-mayaŋpuñña-kiriya-vatthu)
Moral conduct or virtue (Sīla-mayaŋ........................... )
Meditation or mental development (Bhāvana-maya .... )
Respect or reverence (Apaciti-sahagataŋ....)
Service in helping others (Veyyāvacca-sahagataŋ.... )
Transference of merit (Pattānuppadānaŋ ..................)
Rejoicing in other’s merit (Abbhanumodanaŋ ......... )
Expounding or teaching the dhamma (Desana-mayaŋ .....)
Listening to the dhamma (Savana-mayaŋ.................)
Correcting one’s views (Diññhijjukammaŋpuñña-kiriya-vatthu)

This text is Theravadin, and I mostly practice Mahayana, but there isn't any contradiction between the two schools of thought on this matter as far as I can tell.

A Buddha-Field is another word for a Pure land, a realm associated with a Buddha. In the Pure Land Buddhism followers chant to a Buddha such as Amitabha in order to be reborn in his pure land where enlightenment is guaranteed thereafter.
To be honest I'm not seeing much about Dharma-Fields when I look. But if you are seeing the term used in the same context as Buddha-Field I'm going to go out on a limb and say they mean the same. I'd be interested if someone else knows otherwise.
The question about pure lands give more information.
I hope that helps some.

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


text:
What would one encounter at a Buddhist temple service?
With the understanding that there are many different traditions and cultures within Buddhism, I wonder if it is possible to describe what a newcomer might encounter if they went to a temple service and also what might be some handy things to know about before going.
For example, what is considered appropriate attire? Should one bring an offering and if so, what type? What occurs during the service? Chanting? Meditation? How long does a service usually last? Other than common courtesy, are there things that would be important to know to show proper respect?
Thanks and also it would be helpful if tradition/country might be noted along with any descriptions.

You'd be shocked at how much different each ceremony is — even inside the same temple/centre — because there are a multitude of completely different ones, most of which would be completely incomprehensible for someone who came to them for the first time.
One thing is for certain: no matter how outrageously strange the 'ceremony' looks like, it's almost always one of two kinds: either a teaching or a meditation session (one could also see a teaching as a meditation session, of course). The important thing to have in mind is that 'meditation' just means 'training the mind' — mostly to be more mindful, more aware — but there are a lot of completely different types of training! Traditionally, it is said that just Siddhārtha Gautama taught 84,000 different types of training! (But there are many more)
If you'd drop out of the blue into a Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhist temple in the middle of a purification ceremony held twice per month, for example, you'd be seeing a very formal-looking temple, but exotic and garish-looking, with very strange images. Caught in the middle of it, you might be seeing a group of practitioners, old and new, some in loose clothing, some in formal red robes, some in more complicated attire, all laughing, singing (not necessarily 'sacred' chants, just popular contemporary songs), dancing, telling rude jokes, while drinking and eating meat. Dogs would be howling, cats would be sitting on people's laps, and children might be running around making a lot of noise. You'd run quickly away thinking that these people were all crazy or simply not 'serious', but just pranksters...
But in fact each and very one of those people there (except perhaps for the cats, dogs, and children) would be practicing a very complex and advanced form of meditation, using all senses — smell, taste, sound — during one of the most important purification ceremonies.
Obviously this would require a lot of explaining! And even for a very experienced practitioner of a different tradition, such a ceremony would be utterly incomprehensible (at least without a thorough understanding of what that training is supposed to be accomplishing).
Come in on the next day, and you might see the exact same people just sitting on the ground in perfect and complete silence for endless minutes, looking quite serious about it — and then come out of the temple, laughing, joking, making trivial conversation, having fun together, even with the presiding teacher. Again, that completely opposite behaviour might startle many people.
I'm obviously pointing out the extremes. Like @Tommy suggested, the best is to start with some introductory class for beginners. These will often be relatively short, perhaps half an hour to an hour, and there will be a mix of easy-to-understand explanations about easy meditation techniques (easy in the sense that they are very simple to follow — but have profound effects!), followed by short sessions of silent meditation of a few minutes, then back to a few more explanations, and so forth. As the vision of that particular school or tradition is better explained, you might feel more encouraged to attend to the more esoteric practices, and not feel they're completely insane and alien — because you've learned to understand what they are all about.
A few tips should be common to every session you attend. Shoes are off and remain outside in all cases (socks are fine). The same applies to any head gear — hats, baseball caps, scarves. It's customary to stand up when the teacher enters the room (like during Grammar School!), wait for him or her to sit down, and only then take a seat. In less formal environments the teacher will greet the students, and greeting the teacher back is naturally good etiquette. Although Buddhism seriously encourages questions about anything we don't understand (the only stupid question is the one we don't ask), it's customary to leave questions for the Q&A session, and let the teacher speak without interruption unless he or she asks for something specifically to you (like your name!). The reason for that is not merely to 'show respect'. It's actually a training! You're supposed to be learning to pay attention to what is being taught, and, when having questions, remember them until the end of the teaching session — that way, you're both training in paying attention and training your memory (that's why a 'teaching session' is also simultaneously a form of meditation — in this case, training your mind to pay attention and remembering things). Good teachers will always ask students, before they engage into so-called formal meditation practice (what is usually known in the West as 'silent meditation'), if everybody has understood the instructions correctly. At this point it's very desirable to ask questions if there are any doubts about the instructions.
Although teachers are supposed to answer anything (and most will do so gladly), it's good manners to only ask questions about what is being taught. You might read from many transcripts of teachings given by the Dalai Lama that people, during Q&A, ask His Holiness about pretty much everything, even if completely unrelated to what he has been saying. This is impolite. If you have very pressing questions about any other subject, it's better to approach the teacher for a private session. Most will gladly concede those, depending on their availability and time. It's also far less disruptive for the group. On the other hand, allowing the teacher to explain everything without interruption most often will allow them to actually answering your question further on — you'll see that happens quite a lot.
More traditional (even if informal!) meditation sessions will start with a short recitation, and end with another one. This is part of the session itself; it's not a 'waste of time' by 'going religious' or 'superstitious'. Again, you might ask the teacher — at the end, when the session is over — why they recite things at the beginning and at the end. They will gladly explain it thoroughly.
Traditionally, at least in Vajrayana Buddhism, more experienced practitioners will also offer prostrations to the teacher. It is very important that you do not imitate them — unless you know exactly why they're doing that! In Buddhism, nothing is pointless; everything is practice; everything has a very specific meaning and a purpose, and it can rationally be argued and discussed. So, if you are a beginner, you should just sit down after the teacher does, let the other practitioners do their things, and just remain silent. Sitting down in silence is not a form of disrespect; a teacher will know you're new and eager to learn; and he or she will most definitely be glad to explain you what's the whole point in those rituals.
Offerings are not necessary, but obviously they're also welcome. Again, they have a very specific meaning, and — yes, you've guessed it! — they are also a form of meditation, a form of training your mind. In this case, it's a training in generosity — letting go of your attachment to money and other goods. Anything really can be offered, but the important thing is that you're not really offering anything to gain some benefit, get something in return, or just by blindly showing some respect. The practice of generosity is mostly for your own benefit: to learn the importance of letting go of attachments. I remember that I offered my first teacher — before he formally was my teacher — a jar of pickles, because I had heard he liked spicy foods :) So what exactly is offered is irrelevant.
Usually such offerings are made in a way that nobody else is seeing. The purpose here is not to 'show off'. If you can't give anything to the teacher while everybody's watching, you can just leave your gifts anywhere in the centre or temple. Don't worry if they get stolen or not, or if the teacher doesn't get your things for some reason; the whole purpose is for you to practice generosity. Once given away freely, your deed is done. What happens afterwards with your gifts is not your concern. This is often misunderstood, because one thinks that one should have some form of 'control' to what is being done with one's gifts! I have seen teachers who take money, for instance, thank you, and almost immediately afterwards give it to someone else. That even happens with way more precious gifts — golden watches or statues or jewelry. Remember, teachers are practitioners as well, and they also practice generosity towards others!
If you are planning to ask for a private meeting with the teacher, where you will be able to ask any question, it is customary to bring a special offering just to him or her personally. This is a sign that you understand perfectly that these teachings will have a profound meaning in your life: you will learn to be more alert, pay more attention, become a better person. And because that's so precious to you, you wish to show how thankful you are for this kind teacher to be able to spend some time with you. Traditionally, in Tibet, it's customary to offer some sticks of incense, which the teacher can always use for his or her own practice (be careful not to pick Indian incense, though, because it often contains animal fats which are not appropriate as an offering — animals had to be killed to produce that incense. If you're unsure, just ask in the temple or centre for appropriate incense to be given as offerings to a teacher) and something that you know that the teacher likes to eat — biscuits are typical, perhaps some chocolate, or something like that. In the case of a private meeting, offerings are usually given at the very beginning, before you start with your questioning.
When the session ends, students stand up immediately before the teacher does the same. There are a few conventions which vary slightly. Some teachers assume that if the students don't get up, they wish to learn more, and so the teacher will continue. Others, when seeing all students suddenly stand up, might interpret that as dismissing the teacher, which might be slightly offensive. Teachers well acquainted with Westerners will often say good-bye first, so everybody knows that it's time to stand up, and they will rise slowly, to allow everybody to stand up just in time. Prostrations are never made at the end, but it's customary to remain standing, slightly bowed, hands palms touching, always turning towards the teacher, until the teacher leaves the room.
Because Buddhism has its roots in Indian culture, some things might sound silly to us Westerners, but the traditions are kept. You should never turn your back to a representation of the Buddha — or to a teacher. That shows disrespect. That doesn't mean that you need to walk backwards all the way (and risk stumbling!) if you leave a temple with some statues, but you can definitely do that for a few backward steps (safety first! tradition next!). If your teacher comes from the Far East and is not acquainted with Western traditions, it is rude to stare them directly in the eyes (by contrast, a Western teacher, or an Eastern teacher well-acquainted with our traditions, will understand that staring directly in their eyes is a sign of paying close attention to what they're saying, which would be a sign of respect in our culture).
Pointing your feet to the teacher and/or any Buddha statues is also considered very rude. For the Indian tradition, the feet, because they are touching the mud and filth on the ground, are considered 'dirty'. So pointing them at objects worthy of respect is very impolite. If you really need to stretch your legs, do it sideways, so that your feet are not pointing to anyone. In the winter it's sometimes easier, temples might distribute some blankets, and so you can cover your feet that way.
If you're a beginner, and you cannot stay cross-legged for a long period, it's fine to ask for a chair if one is available. Sitting cross-legged is not even an 'Eastern' thing. Chinese, for instance, use chairs. The Japanese 'sit' by kneeling down. So there is no fixed rule for what 'has' to be done when attending ceremonies or teachings. However, Vajrayana Buddhism has some very advanced meditation techniques which require sitting down cross-legged, which will be explained to you why — in due time. In the mean time, in the West, many temples might have some chairs, and it's neither rude, nor impolite, to ask to be allowed to sit there. In fact, if you can sit down and remain still in your chair, it's far better than be constantly stretching legs, arms, back, etc. because you cannot (yet) remain still cross-legged. It's also far less disturbing for others. When sitting down, you should not cross your legs, nor play with them, sit sideways, etc. The appropriate way is to sit down with both legs parallel to each other, feet well planted in the ground, your back straight.
Inside the centre or temple, it is very rude to speak of anything futile or trivial (except on those very exceptional occasions mentioned at the beginning!), but Buddhists are supposed to be happy, easy-going people, so they just have their fun outside. It's not 'hypocrisy' to 'behave well' inside and be a jokester outside — it's only important to understand that, one one hand, Buddhists take their practice very seriously, but the result of that practice is a way of happiness — so being too serious, too worried, too stressed, too stiff is definitely not a good sign! Buddhists are easy-going and certainly behave that way outside the centres or temples! Just look at the Dalai Lama, he's always smiling, laughing, telling jokes, amusing himself with silly things, and pretty much spreading that easy-going nature of his to everybody around him. But inside a temple he's serious.
Good teachers, however, will also teach in an informal way. This is specially the case in the Nyingma and Kagyü schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It's not unusual for a teacher to tell jokes, illustrate a complex point of doctrine with a hilarious anecdote, and, in general, make the students relaxed and in a good mood. Of course, visiting teachers who come for the first time to a specific temple will be much more formal, because they might not know what the reaction of the audience will be. You can certainly see that a teacher who has come to a centre often — or who is a resident at that centre — will most certainly have a much more informal way of teaching.
In a Vajrayana temple, all objects and images you see there are 'special', in the sense that you have to be given special teachings to understand their purpose. You're still welcome to ask about anything, but please refrain from touching anything. In particular, you should not touch anything belonging to the teacher — or to other practitioners. Vajrayana temples have musical instruments around, but, again, they're not toys, and their purpose is not really just making musical sounds — there are far more profounder meanings in the music — and they are not to be handled unless you have been given special instructions and explanations about them. This sounds a bit crazy and secretive, but you can imagine how you would feel if a visitor to your place would start opening the drawers and look at your underclothing and ask strange questions. Of course, if that visitor happens to be your sweetheart or someone very close to you, you would share a certain degree of intimacy, and then you'll let them do that to your home easily. Vajrayana Buddhism is a bit like that: once you have some 'intimacy' with the whole philosophy and the whole point of the practice, then, yes, slowly, you'll be able to touch everything, do everything... and, in fact, it will even be a requirement. In many Vajrayana temples, new visitors might be shocked that suddenly one of the other practitioners start to do the practice without a supervising teacher, or even teach some meditation techniques, etc. There is no real 'dividing line' between 'student' and 'teacher'. A teacher becomes a teacher when their own teacher tells them to do so! So, every time you see someone who is dressed just like you, very casually, all of the sudden leading a meditation session or more complex ceremony on their own, you can rest assured that they have been given explicit permission from their own teachers to do so. In fact, they're practicing to become teachers one day. And the first thing that they all learn is how to do everything — because teachers will die some time, and who will continue their work?
Books with recitations or anything related to the teachings of the Buddha should never be touched or handled without permission, and never ever placed in the ground. You should also never place anything on top of them — not even your glasses (if you use glasses to read). The reason for that is that these books contain the precious instructions that will teach you how to train your mind, to become more functional, a gentler being, a better person. Even if they're just photocopies of something scribbled down in a hurry, they're the most precious things you can find. As such, they are to be handled respectfully. If, before a meditation session, they handle out some plain printouts of the recitations, or some instructions, don't place them on the ground. They might look very simple and plain, but they're nevertheless very precious. And, for practical purposes, it also means that you are not spoiling them, making them dirty and unreadable, thus contributing that the next person who gets them to read can benefit from them as well. Not all Buddhist groups are wealthy enough to be constantly printing out things!
Most groups will also not give you their books or photocopies of the recitations, etc. This is not due to a lack of generosity of their part! One difference from Buddhism to other religions and philosophies is that you cannot learn anything from a book — just from a teacher. Books are just memory aids — things to remind you what you're supposed to do. But without a teacher to explain you what is meant, they're worthless — to anyone who doesn't understand them. As such, they're not easily given away. Instead, you should always ask the teacher for permission to get a copy. A teacher will know if you really intend to practice those instructions seriously, and, if that's the case, he will be most glad to give a copy or allow you to buy them. But if he's not sure yet that you intend to follow the practice as he instructed, then he will politely decline to allow you a copy.
Many teachers practice generosity towards their students. Some teachers are really not wealthy and give away everything; so the slightest gift is very important, and also a form of test. For example, it's rude not to accept something to eat or drink from a teacher. When he offers you food or drink, he or she is symbolically offering you the teachings of the Buddha — this is the most generous offer he or she can make to you. So even if you're full from your last meal, or even ill with some stomach disease, accept at least a tiny morsel of what the teacher is giving to you. This will give the teacher confidence in you: if you're willing to accept food from him or her, you will very likely be willing to accept teachings from them as well.
Last, but most definitely not least, but rather the contrary: Buddhism is a very thorough philosophy/way of life/religion/science of the mind with a vast amount of literature. Over 2,600 years of discussion and debate have been recorded by millions of teachers. As a result, it's profoundly logical and rational at every level. While externally there might be some rituals and some rules to observe, all of them have some logic behind you. So, the beginner's mind should be a questioning mind. Question everything. Be skeptical, but open-minded enough to ask everything. Think the answers over: do they make sense to you? Are the arguments rational and well-presented? If so, accept the answers, and turn them as if they were your own. If they don't make any sense to you, reject them. Siddhārtha Gautama himself said, quite clearly, that nobody should take his words for granted, just because he is called the Buddha. Instead, you should think them over very carefully and see if they make sense. If not, and you're still curious about Buddhism, ask away — ask as much as you can to see if you can clear away each and any doubt you have. Be wary of 'teachers' who refuse to answer your questions, or come up with some technical mumbo-jumbo which might sound impressive but really doesn't make any sense. Buddhist teachers do not try to 'impress' students, or 'convert' them. Instead, they describe methods and techniques, and expect students to ask them 'why does this work?' — but also that they are willing to experiment those techniques and see if they work for themselves. It's a very experimental philosophy: it makes little sense to read about Buddhism — except if you wish to put it into practice, which is the whole point.
Oh, I forgot to say: make sure you get a qualified teacher to ask your questions. A qualified teacher is someone who has been asked by their own teachers to teach. And you're certainly allowed to ask any teacher, 'who told you that you're allowed to teach?' Any serious, qualified teacher will have absolutely no problem in answering that question truthfully — and you're quite welcome to check if it's true!
I, for sure, am not a qualified teacher :) But I try to help when asked to the limit of my abilities; all I know was what my poor memory retained from the words of my excellent teachers. So all mistakes I make are only mine — not a flaw of the teachings of the Buddha, and most certainly no flaws from my own teachers.

Thanks @Gwyneth! This was an incredible amount of information to pass along and I thank you for taking the time to do it. Great to get a peek into another tradition and hopefully will be useful to lots of other people here as well. :)

It varies hugely across different types of Buddhism. For example, I visited a Tibetan temple (in Europe) and entered the main room near the back during the "service". It was just as if I'd walked into a Catholic church, although far more ornate than even the funkiest western church I'd ever seen. Monks at the front facing the people, one important-looking one talking. The people were mostly in regular casual clothing, sitting on cushions or, near the back, chairs, and listening. No one bothered when I (or others) came in and sat down, nor when a few people left early.
But I've been to zazen and kinhin a few times at a Zen center (they'd not call it a "temple"). It was totally different. It was very precise, no talking, lots of bowing, and the bulk of the time everyone sitting facing the walls (it was Soto zen) in silence. That said, after the second zazen session, we all shuffled towards one end and there was chanting, and other ritualistic stuff. I just followed along until I got roughly the hang of it. Although there were a lot of places to get stuff wrong, which I did, no one seemed to mind.
That's just two. I imagine there are many more, with lots of differences.
The only advice ("handy thing") I'd offer is, in the case of a western Zen center, look for a beginner's session. Lots of them seem to offer such sessions, and they may well include some etiquette talk (e.g. how and when to bow).
P.S. Shoes off and left outside in both cases


text:
Is there a historical connection between Buddhism and martial arts?
Are kung fu monks and all related Hollywood stereotypes based on any actual historical connection between Buddhism and martial arts? Or is it just a fun movie concept? :)

There is a legend that Bodhidharma instructed the monks at the Shaolin Monastery in ways to increase their physical fitness. These exercises later became the Shaolon kung fu.  As one of the documents involved seems to be a forgery, scholars now doubt this connection.
Also see here and here.
Additionally the concept of Do has influenced many japanese martial arts, changing the craft (-jutsu) of fighting to a way (-do) of fighting (e.g. karate-do, ken-do)

This is just one more good example on how Buddhism mixed with local culture, Buddhism began in India and spread through Asia, in many countries it incorporated local practices and believes just like all main religions have done, things like Martial arts, Astrology, Tantra, etc were local additions, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, good or bad, but it didn't come from the original teachings and practices.

I heard many of my relatives tell me this(I am a Indian BTW, so I assume what my relatives tell me has some degree of truth to it cause some of their ancestors might have known the correct answer to this and they passed down their wisdom to these folks) that Buddhist roam around all over the world to preach Buddhism and as required by their travel used to go to all the dangerous places where there is a high probability of them getting mugged !
So things like karate, kung fu came into being as a self-defense techniques !!
If you think about it, these Buddhists used to frequent the silk route to spread Buddhism which was also frequented by traders carrying insanely precious goods and hence attracted most muggers ! Given the fact that Buddhism just came into being during that time, these muggers couldn't tell a monk from a trader so its not tough to imagine these monks getting attacked frequently by them hoping to find silk, spices, gold or something precious ! So these monks must have invented Kung fu and Karate as a self defence technique which gradually became more than that ...

that's some very interesting hearsay. i hope it can be sourced.

In the contrary spirit, there is a sutra in the palicanon, where the buddha talks to some monk who wants to go to spread the dharma, and the buddha asks: are you also prepared to bear all physical pain they will possibly do to you? And are you prepared not to go into conflict with them but to stay compassionate and calmly?

A short answer is NO. In the history of Buddhist foundations, there is nothing to do with martial arts.
By the way, these kind of monks in China are real. They have adapted and created their own way to train their minds (and bodies) by applying some "part" of Buddhist philosophy.

Maybe not going all the way back to the Buddha himself, but there certainly are historical associations between Buddhism and martial arts that predate Hollywood.


text:
What is the Pure Land?
The Three Pure Land sutras contain descriptions of a beautiful and serene place with trees, ponds, and palaces all made of jewels and surrounded with heavenly music and fragrance. How is this Pure Land understood by followers of Pure Land schools? Is it thought of as a place one will literally go after this life or is it more of an inspiration or source of imagery for meditation? Or something else entirely? Thank you for helping me to understand this.

It depends on the school and/or the tradition a Buddhist chooses to follow. Just so you are aware, Pureland is really only a "school" in Japan. Everywhere else in Mahayana, a kind of Pureland practice is usually taken for granted, or at least not treated as its own separate practice, like in Chinese Ch'an, for instance.
The majority of the Buddhists who aspire to be reborn in any Pureland (there is more than one) usually believe it to be a literal place you go after you die if you aspire to be reborn there. Others use thoughts of Pureland as grounds for meditation and/or prayer. Others take it upon themselves in their Bodhisattva practice to make this realm a pureland. None of these are mutually exclusive either--all three practices can be undertaken by any given person.

In the White Lotus Sutra many, many Buddhas, Arhants, Bodhisattva's are introduced. Each Buddha or Buddha to be has their own pure land which is described in very evocative language. For instance Shariputra, one of the Buddha's main disciples in the Pali Canon, is predicted to become the Buddha 'Buddha Flower Grow' in future lives. This Buddha will have a pure land called 'Free from Stain'. The land will be

level and smooth, pure and beautifully adorned, peaceful, bountiful
  and happy. Heavenly human beings will flourish there. [...] Beside
  each road will grow rows of seven jewelled trees which will constantly
  flower and bear fruit.

Quote taken from the Burton Watson translation (pp 52 in my copy)
In this text every Buddha has a pure land and every pure land is mind bendingly amazing. The sutra as a whole does a good job of bending the mind.
Perhaps in a less mythic sense, I have heard the pure land as pointing to a sense of letting go. Maybe a quality of surrender or other power. They can be understood in a variety of different ways.

There are so many confusion regarding Pure Land Buddhism that I feel I must chip in. Many people even see it as non Buddhist because it seems to be about the Amitabha Buddha saving humans through the power of his grace.
I am from a non denominational Chinese Mahayana organization with Chan lineage but we also heavily devote to Amitabha and emphasize the Amitabha Sutra in our practice.
After more than a year of chanting the sutra, my conclusion is that it is a metaphor for the Dharma! Remember that Pure Land Buddhism is an outgrowth of Mahayana Buddhism and therefore one of the highest goals is the Perfection of Skillful Means (Upaya Paramita). Mahayana texts utilize fantastical imageries and stories to bring across the difficult to understand technical concepts and teachings in early Buddhism, preserved in the Pali Canon and the Sanskrit Agama.
Imagine your average person being told about the Four Noble Truths, Suffering, Cause of suffering, End of Suffering and the Noble Eightfold Path. It doesn't interest him - "Give up my desires? That's ridiculous! And end of suffering doesn't sound exciting at all! Impermanence sounds so depressing!"
So this is where Pure Land Buddhism comes in. "What if we tell you that there is a place called the World of Supreme Bliss better than any worldly pleasures? And to reach there you need chant this sutra everyday, and I promise you Amitabha Buddha will appear before you". If you didn't realize, chanting is actually a very powerful form of meditation, in fact for the novice, it is faster and more effective than sitting meditation and trying to watch your breath. Here your attention and focus is on the sutra, attaining Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. With that it is possible to experiences the mental factors of the Jhana, joy, happiness, peace, and realizations.
Further more the description of the Pure Land has peppered references throughout to the numbers four, seven and eight. Referring to the Four Noble Truths, Seven Factor of Enlightenment, Noble Eightfold Path.
There are many other messages within. For example, the name of Amitabha himself is Infinite Life and Infinite Light, referring to the Deathless Truth and Wisdom of the Dharma, reminding people that ultimately the goal of Buddhism is Eternal Life, and that the buddhas are ultimately immortal.
Further more it is stated in sutra that in the Pure Land of Amitabha, even lower realms (hell, hungry ghost, and animals) do not exist, this is a Mahayana message that ultimately the goal is not only to save yourself, but purify the whole world. Pure Land Buddhists vow to turn this very world into a paradise. And have a Pure Land in their hearts wherever they maybe.
At the end of the Amitabha sutra, the theme of perfection of skillful means repeats, It said that to attain enlightenment is difficult, but what is even more difficult is to teach it.
There are many other messages which I am slowly absorbing as I encounter them, but I hope this clarify the intentions of Pure Land Buddhism.


text:
Is what is taught under the term "Radical Buddhism" consistent with Buddhist values?
Recently, so-called "radical Buddhists" like the monk Wirathu from the 969 Buddhist Nationalist movement in Burma, incited unrest and preached violence against minorities like Muslims. (See, for example, Special Report: Myanmar gives official blessing to anti-Muslim monks.)
Is there any part of Buddhist teaching or literature that supports these views or is it like a "wolf in sheep's clothing"?

According to my understanding (in Theravada tradition) and with the context of your question (Violence in the context of "radical Buddhism"), there is no room for any form of violence. Buddhist teaching does not encourage violence by any means even in solving human conflicts and social problems.
For example in Dhammapada there are several verses discourage the violence acts.
Verse 129:

All are afraid of the stick, all fear death. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others.

Verse 130:

All are afraid of the stick, all hold their lives dear. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others.

Verse 131:

He who seeks his own happiness by oppressing others, who also desire to have happiness, will not find happiness in his next existence.

Verse 132:

He who seeks his own happiness by not oppressing others, who also desire to have happiness, will find happiness in his next existence

In fact Buddha teach that the sensual desire is the main cause for creating dispute and violence.
Ref:
http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=129
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/12/Deegalle.pdf


text:
How is a Theravada Buddhist monastery established?
There is no Theravada monastery in the country I live in. I just read a short brief about lay people going together and forming a forest monastery in Norway, and was wondering about how a monastery is established?
Who initiates the process and who makes the decision (lay people, monastics, both in combination, or either)? Thinking in terms of whether it's just monastics moving back to their home country to spread the Dhamma, or if lay people gather support and invite monks.
Not so much about the religious or practical considerations, just looking for a helicopter view.

There might be different answers for different countries. I can imagine that in some countries establishing a Buddhist temple might be a quite hard task...

@Rabbit good point. Thanks. However, there must also be a number of common considerations - I have no information at all on the subject, so it would be interesting to hear what's involved, even if just for a single country.

Well a monastery needs monastics, so the first step is having a community of lay persons in an area close enough to be able to provide support to the monastics, then you invite them to come stay and it goes from there.
There is an article by Bhante G, founder of Bhavana Society where he talks about all the ins and outs of starting a forest monastery, If i can find it I'll post. this is also a perfect post for Ven Yuttadhammo.

@Jayantha thanks, I appreciate you looking into that article. Also waiting for a response by Ven. Yuttadhammo, as the local expert on these matters.

I think there are at least two distinct questions here - what needs to be done practically (setting up a non-profit, getting funds, etc.) vs. what needs to be done religiously (getting some number of monastic people, performing any relevant ceremonies, etc.). I think that it would be helpful to split this question in two so that people with relevant expertise on each side of the practical/religious divide can provide their input separately.

@senshin I've updated the question to ask for more of an overview of who initiates and decides on the establishment - not so much practicalities. Thanks for the comment.

@FullPeace.org here is that article I promised to find! Took so long because I couldn't find it anywhere :)
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha095.htm

@Jayantha thank you for following up with the link to the article! Very interesting read.

Initially, it is the invitation of the laity to the Sangha, who then satisfy themselves that the support is adequate for their needs.  A lay community invites a Bhikkhu that they find particularly inspiring.  He finds a quorum of Bhikkhus to accompany him so as to maintain the Vinaya discipline. Lay communities often set up some kind of a committee so as to oversee and organise a physical accommodation, suitable for practice and religious observations: this varies considerably from one monastery to another.


text:
Buddhism and bacteria
Buddhist teachings tell that all intentional killing is negative karma. So, what about bacteria? Are bacteria considered to be sentient beings? Is using antibiotics negative karma?
Is it possible to reborn as a bacterium?

Bacteria are not understood to be sentient (Wikipedia: Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity), so probably not. However, perhaps the intention of killing could have negative karmic effects. As opposed to cure an organism (i.e. human) or clean something to avoid contagion.

@yuttadhammo has replied to the same question at http://ask.sirimangalo.org/1560/bacterial-rebirth-and-karma - see Q4.

Not a complete duplicate, but related to killing http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/87/is-killing-vermin-and-insects-justifiable

As I pointed out in my answer to "are earthworms our mothers?"  these kind of questions often assume incorrect frame of reference, different from the one Buddhism operates in. The point of teachings is to produce a certain state of mind, that will affect your behavior in certain way, that will eventually lead to better results, up to and including Enlightenment for you and the rest of the sentient beings.
The Five Precepts (no killing, stealing, speaking nonfactually, letting sensual pleasure control you, getting intoxicated) are an entry-level practice that is designed to help practitioner master basic discipline of self-reflection and self-control. Abstaining from killing, stealing etc. implies basic ability to watch one's mind for harmful thoughts and emotions, and to prevent them from getting acted out.
In light of the above, the no-killing rule should not be understood literally, as an absolute law, but as a guideline for training the mind. It is not acceptable to hurt or harm any creature (big or small) out of antipathy, obsessive desire, or ignorance. This is what Five Precepts are mostly about, countering the Three Poisons.
For reference, the Three Poisons are three basic moods afflicting the mind, impairing one's judgement and goal-making abilities:

Anger/Hate/Irritation/Aversion/Antipathy/Negativity
Lust/Desire/Attraction/Obsession
Ignorance/Confusion/Sloth/Torpor

Most people use antibiotics out of desire to cure illness, or out of aversion towards the illness, so your answer seems to imply that using antibiotics to cure illness does produce bad kamma. Do I understand it correctly?

No, you do not!

Is it because the aversion is towards the illness, and not towards bacteria? Or for some other reason? I think the answer is a bit unclear.


text:
Buddhism and past lives?
The idea of having more than one life in Buddhism is regarded not  just as a theory but  a truth that can be experienced and verified If this is so, what was the technique used by the Buddha to recollect past lives? What is the exact technique that leads to remembering one's past lives according to Buddhism?

The technique is called reaching enlightenment ;)

lol! although if Im not mistaken it is a power that you don't need to have to become enlightened and you can develop this supernormal ability without being enlightened through deep concentration practice.
Bhante would be the best person to answer this one.

According to my teachers (Korean Zen and Tibetan Vajrayana), because Buddhism explicitly denies existence of soul (see anatta), the concept of rebirth does not refer to reincarnation of the same person, but rather to propagation of information from one life to another.
Recollection of past lives then is not to be understood literally but as a metaphor for clearly seeing patterns of karma acting out from one generation to another. This requires shedding an irrational belief in existence of "I" as a solid entity, subject of experience, and independent agent of action.
The technique for achieving this level of insight is known as vipassana or "special insight meditation", to be preceded by "calm abiding meditation", samatha, in order to attain the necessary clarity of mind.

Technically, the memory of past lives requires the four meditative stages to be accomplished. See my answer to this thread: What exactly is Jhana?

"Visuddhimagga" Chapter XII can be used as the reference. It begins with

Now, in order to perfect those kinds of direct-knowledge the task must be undertaken by a meditator who has reached the fourth jhána in the earth kasióa, and so on.

Here it describe 5 kinds of "direct- knowledge". The 4th one is the knowledge of recollection of past lives;
According to the text the technique is quite lengthy (hence not going to past here) and very well described.
Apart from that, I have read /listened to various "Dhamma" talks regarding this subject. According to those, it is required to have a deep state of "samadhi" to begins with.
Then you can train your mind to remember the past. You could start with remembering things backwards. For example, what was I doing before now, then before that, then before that...
When you got stuck, just come back to the meditation, develop the "samadhi" again and try training again.
Please have a look at these could of videos as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlcz5hMHPXw
Hope this helps.
Ref:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

According to the Maha-Assapura Sutta translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a practitioner works on The Three Knowledges, one of which is recollection of past lives, after obtaining all four Jhanas..

"And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure and stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress — he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither-pleasure nor stress.
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives.

The technique is appear in the first ten Sutta of Tipitaka, such as DN2 SamannaphalaSutta, DN10 SubhaSutta.
Those Sutta is about keeping  precept to practice wholesome minds at six doors on the wholesome objects, PatibhagaNimitta (instead of Nimitta and Anubayanjana which are unwholesome objects), in every posture, all situations, until the practitioner could get the 4th Mastery Jhana.
Then the concentration and Panna at this Jhana is good enough to practice the better Panna, AdhiPannaSikkha, such as Past-Lives-Recollection and the other Seven Vijja.
You need high skill of reciting and pali language to understand DN10 like what I've written, it's called Sandhi-Anusandhi/Pabbapara in Pali cannon. It's required skill to understand Pali cannon.


text:
Who is the laughing Buddha?
Given that Gautama Buddha was an ascetic until shortly before his enlightenment and several Dhammapada verses reflect a moderate attitude toward food, such as:

Verse 7: He who keeps his mind on pleasant objects, who is uncontrolled in his senses, immoderate in his food, and is lazy and lacking in energy, will certainly be overwhelmed by Mara, just as stormy winds uproot a weak tree. source: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=007

it's unlikely he looked much like the image below. But the statue pictured below is often referred to as a "laughing Buddha". What is the story of the laughing Buddha?

His name is Budai and many people in the West mistake his image as being Gautama Buddha. Budai is usually identified with or seen as an incarnation of Maitreya, the future Buddha.

Was he a Buddhist monk? I also found he was an eccentric monk. I had read a folklore that he can predict something like if will raining his sole were become wet.

@Swapnil there are no records of Budai being a monk. In fact Budai has no relation to Buddhism or Budhdha at all. Its just a misunderstanding made by people, that they call Budai as Budhdha.

@Sampath Yeah in India people call him laughing Buddha. Thank you


text:
How is semchen (sentient being) defined?
Semchen is typically defined as a sentient being.  What does this mean?  What is sentience?
This question about killing bacteria indicates bacteria are not sentient, but I distinctly remember a guru say dust mites are sentient.  Am I imposing my evolution-based viewpoint onto a ladder of sentience?

It depends on the school. Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

The Diamond Sutra teaches us that it is impossible to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient beings... In Buddhist monasteries, we chant, "Both sentient and non- sentient beings will realize full enlightenment." The First Precept is the practice of protecting all lives, including the lives of minerals.

(Source: http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/precepts/precept-1.html)