text:
How does Dating work in Buddhism
What does the Buddha say about dating, in general? This is a fairly open-ended question, and any scriptural references would help.
I would have lustful thoughts when I look at a pretty girl (though I try not to act on it and meditate on impermanence as I walk by her.) But, it just occurred to me that if I eradicate lust, then do I even need a girlfriend in the first place?? Thus, I'm really confused about how the mechanism of dating works.
Is it even possible to have a girlfriend/wife without lust?
Or, is there an entirely different answer?
This question has been bugging me for at least a year, I would really appreciate anyone's efforts in helping me resolve this.
Thanks! Answers with Scriptural references is preferred, but personal experiences are also welcomed.
Praises to the Dharma!

The topics "Do buddhists fall in love?" and "Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?" might interest you. Is your question answered by the answers to these questions?

A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a
  pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should
  not go to another's wife. - Dhammika Sutta

A layman is not expected to lead a celibate life. What you are expected as a Buddhist is to avoid sexual misconduct.

Is it even possible to have a girlfriend/wife without lust?

Yes, but not necessarily for the good. ex: marrying to get citizenship, marrying for money, power, marrying to cover up sexuality etc.
A good example would be a married man becoming an Anagami later. He can still live in the lay life, but girlfriend/wife will merely be ceremonial positions. He will just treat her as a sister or a friend.


text:
Was Gautama Buddha a believer of the religious beliefs prevalent in his time and in his cultural context?
Before Siddhartha Gautama became The Omniscient Buddha, did he believe in, support and uphold the religious beliefs that the commoners and/or learned persons practiced at the time that he lived?
Or alternatively, did he question the established religious beliefs of his time, and in his culture?
In other words, did Siddhartha Gautama arrive at his Enlightenment by BELIEVING in prevailing religious mythology and principles, or did he arrive at his Enlightenment by QUESTIONING, EXAMINING and REJECTING them?

The Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search is a partial description of his quest for enlightenment.
It contains passages like the following,

"Having thus gone forth in search of what might be skillful, seeking
  the unexcelled state of sublime peace, I went to Alara Kalama and, on
  arrival, said to him: 'Friend Kalama, I want to practice in this
  doctrine & discipline.'
"When this was said, he replied to me, 'You may stay here, my friend.
  This doctrine is such that a wise person can soon enter & dwell in his
  own teacher's knowledge, having realized it for himself through direct
  knowledge.'
"It was not long before I quickly learned the doctrine. As far as mere
  lip-reciting & repetition, I could speak the words of knowledge, the
  words of the elders, and I could affirm that I knew & saw — I, along
  with others.
"I thought: 'It isn't through mere conviction alone that Alara Kalama
  declares, "I have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it
  for myself through direct knowledge." Certainly he dwells knowing &
  seeing this Dhamma.' So I went to him and said, 'To what extent do you
  declare that you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma?' When this was
  said, he declared the dimension of nothingness.
"I thought: 'Not only does Alara Kalama have conviction, persistence,
  mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction,
  persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. What if I were
  to endeavor to realize for myself the Dhamma that Alara Kalama
  declares he has entered & dwells in, having realized it for himself
  through direct knowledge.' So it was not long before I quickly entered
  & dwelled in that Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct
  knowledge. I went to him and said, 'Friend Kalama, is this the extent
  to which you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it
  for yourself through direct knowledge?'
"'Yes, my friend...'
"'This, friend, is the extent to which I, too, have entered & dwell in
  this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge.'
"'It is a gain for us, my friend, a great gain for us, that we have
  such a companion in the holy life. So the Dhamma I declare I have
  entered & dwell in, having realized it for myself through direct
  knowledge, is the Dhamma you declare you have entered & dwell in,
  having realized it for yourself through direct knowledge. And the
  Dhamma you declare you have entered & dwell in, having realized it for
  yourself through direct knowledge, is the Dhamma I declare I have
  entered & dwell in, having realized it for myself through direct
  knowledge. The Dhamma I know is the Dhamma you know; the Dhamma you
  know is the Dhamma I know. As I am, so are you; as you are, so am I.
  Come friend, let us now lead this community together.'
"In this way did Alara Kalama, my teacher, place me, his pupil, on the
  same level with himself and pay me great honor. But the thought
  occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to
  dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to
  Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension
  of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.
"In search of what might be skillful, seeking the unexcelled state of
  sublime peace, I went to Uddaka Ramaputta and, on arrival, etc.

In other words he studied with various teachers, and successfully learned what they were teaching, but wasn't satisfied (and therefore went to another teacher, etc.).

In other words, did Siddhartha Gautama arrive at his Enlightenment by BELIEVING in prevailing religious mythology and principles, or did he arrive at his Enlightenment by QUESTIONING, EXAMINING and REJECTING them?

I think he started by learning teachers' doctrines and practices, but (having understood them) finding them unsatisfactory.

Chris, thank you. Yours is a well-reasoned and satisfying answer. I accept it completely.

There's no belief for a Buddha. A Buddha is omniscient. He knows what is right and what is wrong by direct knowledge.
Yes, the Buddha did uphold certain religious practices of the time which are congenial to the path.
ex: The five precepts, 13 Dutangas, attainment of the Janas
He also rejected many false views which the contemporary religions were based on. They are grouped into 62 in Brahmajāla sutta.

I meant, when Buddha was just a human being, and before he became superhuman and acquire superpowers like omniscience. I have edited the question to clarify this.

As of my understanding,

In other words, did Siddhartha Gautama arrive at his Enlightenment by
  BELIEVING in prevailing religious mythology and principles

No. He tried many teachers. But he couldn't find what he is looking for. So ultimately he himself found the what he looked for.

did he arrive at his Enlightenment by QUESTIONING, EXAMINING and
  REJECTING them?

No for this too. He found his enlightenment by himself. Not by questioning, examining someone else. He didn't directly go to Jungle and start meditation nor he questioned from the very first moment from other teachers. He tried patiently. And once he understood that this is not he was looking for, he left. He did this several times. Finally he decided to search it by himself and arrived at his enlightenment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Won't bad karma cause a chain reaction?
So consider the situation where you did something bad like killing someone (or something less serious) which means that you now have bad karma. So now something bad needs to happen to you, considering all things this thing will statistically caused by another person doing something to hurt you (physically or mentally) which adds to their bad karma and so on.
My question is what would have to be done to stop this chain reaction?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teUXh0wcU64&list=PLF755B81CBBCA7B59&index=4

i'm not saying that the bad deed has to be caused because of revenge, i'm saying that another person does something bad to the original person because the original person bad karma, taking the fact that something bad will happen to the person with bad karma and assuming that this bad thing is done by a person then wont the person who does the second bad thing have bad karma now?

BTW, I'm assuming that in this situation the first person or anyone in this chain doesn't do anything good to cancel out their bad karma

What about wholesome karma?

Your bad Karma does not cause bad Karma for others. If another person gets a mindset to kill, it's not a result of your bad Karma. It's a result of his own aversion and volition. But your bad karma can place you at the wrong place at the wrong time.
ex: A crocodile might attack anyone who gets into the water. Your bad karma can place you at the river when the crocodile is waiting to grab a meal.
Coconuts fall down from coconut trees whether you killed someone or not. But your bad Karma can place you under a coconut tree when a coconut is falling down.

It's not that the first offender's karma causes the second offender's karma. Instead, as my first teacher explained, in context of the victim-and-offender relationship karma works as a giant matchmaking machine, bringing the two together to rip the fruits of the seeds once sawn.
But you are right in that the mutual evil deeds don't cancel themselves out. Instead, karma has self-sustaining inertia, like a heavy spinning wheel - the more you spin it the more it spins you.
However, as Buddha has shown, not all of the future is determined solely by past karma. Our decision-making NOW is the most important factor.
In your example, both people, the original offender and the second offender, would commit their crimes due to 1) their own bad karma, PLUS 2) their own bad decision-making on the spot.
So "to stop the chain reaction", the only thing we can control is ourselves:
"Am I choosing to act out my previous pain, insults and injuries -- and by doing  thus to spin the wheel of evil? Or should the chain of evil stop on myself? Let me spin the wheel of love and compassion instead!"

I'm a cafeteria Buddhist, blending what I understand of it with what I understand of behavioral science and physics. Karma literally translates as "action."
Newton's third law: for ever action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So for a good action, there is a generally equal in magnitude good action coming back to you. For a bad action, likewise. These actions aren't necessarily for another day... or lifetime... to come. Actions could be immediate, in the way a waiter treats you, someone responds to a post or comment, you are apprehended by the law, and so on.
Good actions beget good, and the more you do, the more you tend to be the recipient of good action. The good energy this produces within you and around you is a virtuous cycle with many benefits for health and well being. Bad actions beget bad. The world is very much a mirror for who you are being.
I see karma as a way of understanding the interaction of all the phenomena surrounding us and a guidepost for happiness and peace.

Lord Buddha said this about your scenario...
"Enmity against enmity can't win"
Karma can be a chain reaction occasionally.If i kill you and you die with anger against me it will create a chain reaction.But if you die with "Metta/Maithree" (a form of unshakable kindness explained in Buddhism) in your mind towards me it will not create a chain reaction.But i will have bad karma.
So your question is, "when it comes to effect me wouldn't someone else come to kill me and wouldn't that person gain bad karma?"
The answer is no, because that is not the only way a karma can come to effect someone.
Imagine i killed you with a gun. So what happened, I sent something through you. Now memorize all the horror movie moments you've had and tell me how many ways are there for a person to die by having something go through his body!
As you can see there is no need for an additional individual for karma to take effect.
Now let's see the same with another individual in the equation.
I have killed you and now i have enough karma to be murdered.And i am no angel,i have many enemies with "small beefs" (quarrel/enmity) against me.
Now as my karma has changed if they try to hurt me there is a huge potential of something going wrong and me dying in the process.They would even be more compelled to kill me.What is important here is that no matter what they still have their heads too.They can choose to not to do anything.But if they try to hurt me i could die even if they have no plans for my death.
I must tell you what lord Buddha  said about trying to learn how karma works.
Lord Buddha said only a Lord Buddha can tell the true effect of a karma and no one else is equally accurate in that task.This statement was proved many times by "Arahants" who asked about some people's next lives.

Kamma is complicated subject which only a Buddha fully understands. Kamma influences your environment to create the experience for you. Say you were assaulted. This can be due  to Karma and sometime not. Also the person could have become irritated because of you bad Kamma and hit you. Some other cases stimuli can be from other source and you bad Kamma put you there.
In cases where you bad Kamma simulates action of others this can be cumulative as you said where someone gets bad Kamma to which he might have to real a result which intern cases someone else to get bad Kamma. But again not all kamma give result. Also some results are not though volitional action (accidents, post collapsing) of others hence no one makes kamma when they bear fruit.
In most cases kamma tent to bear fruit though people we meet regularly and the environment you are mostly in. Hence generally most cases bad kamma cumulates. This is most evident there are times when life span increases as well as decreases which is based on the cumulative Kamma of the inhabitants of the particular plane.

If you kill so.eone let's say the bad karma or result will be sickness injury or short life all of those things can be occur without injury to another person and injury isn't a cause of more suffering neither is death the Buddha teaching pain is inevitable suffering is optional, make sure you get rid of suffering before and after the unwholesome karma

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

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


text:
What is the difference between Suttas and Sutras?
Reading this question and its accepted answer prompted me to ask the following question:
Is there a difference between Suttas and Sutras? and, if so, what is the difference?
Thank you

Sutra (Skt.), Sutta (Pali) is a term for any literary composition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutra should get you started.
The word was in use in India before Buddhism, so you can find it used in all Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) as well as in Sanskrit grammar and poetry.
As with anything from as far back as two millenia, there's dissenting opinions, for example:

Some scholars consider that the Buddhist use of sutra is a faulty
  Sanskritization of the Prakrit or Pali word sutta and that the latter
  actually represented Sanskrit sūkta, "well spoken, good news"

SOURCE: K. R. Norman: A philological approach to Buddhism: the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai Lectures 1994. (Buddhist Forum, Vol. v.) xx, 193 pp. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1997. p. 104

alpākṣaraṃ asandigdhaṃ sāravad viśvatomukham astobhaṃ anavadyaṃ ca
  sūtram sūtravido viduḥ.
Of minimal syllabary, unambiguous, pithy,
  comprehensive, continuous, and without flaw: who knows the sutra knows
  it to be thus.

SOURCE: Vayu Purana

TO start, Sutta is Pali and Sutra is Sanskrit.  Just like Latin and Greek.
One of the meanings of Sutta is "acquired knowledge".  That is why most if not all, Pali sutta start with Evaṃ me sutaṃ (sutta).  [one time, i  have heard...]

IMO, Sutta and Sutra are brands.  When i hear sutta, i think about Buddhism, but when I hear about Sutra, i think about Hinduism, or Jainism.

When I hear Sutta, I think of Theravadan Buddhism, and when I hear Sutra, I think of Mahayanan Buddhism


text:
Do people in the Narakas (or non-human realms) remember their past lives?
I'm asking about what ancient traditionalist wrote or believed, particularly the ones the reified the narkas, i.e. took them literally.
Us humans don't normally remember our past lives and this is made explicit in Mahayana, where one of the qualities of a Buddha is that they can remember past lives.
If people are reborn in hells and they don't know why they are there, I'm not sure how effective the punishment is. Did anyone come up with a rationalization for punishment for crimes they don't remember, or did people in the hells remember what they did?

Hell is not a punishment, it is a purification of mind

Yes, they do know the kamma that lead them there. In fact, the governer in hell (king Yama) is regarded as a nice person who tries to help them recall any of their past good deeds before throwing them away to torture. If they happen to recall any good action, they'll be turned away to be born again in a higher realm. Such an instance is given in Devaduta sutta where king Yama tries to remind a new entrant of the five deva messengers that instigate people to do good in the human world.
There's a nice background story to a Dhammapada verse where king Pasenadi consulted Buddha on hearing some weird sounds at night and this turning out to be four of his former friends now in Lohakumbhi hell trying to convey him a message on consequences of their sexual misconducts.

Meanwhile, King Pasenadi, obsessed with sexual desire, could not
  sleep, and kept thinking out how he would get rid of the husband in
  the morning and take his wife. At about midnight, he heard some eerie
  sounds; actually, these were the doleful voices of four persons
  suffering in Lohakumbhi Niraya . Hearing those weird voices, the king
  was terrified. Early in the morning, he went to the Buddha, as advised
  by Queen Mallika. When the Buddha was told about the four voices the
  king heard in the night, he explained to the king that those were the
  voices of four beings, who were the sons of rich men during the time
  of Kassapa Buddha, and that now they were suffering in Lohakumbhi
  Niraya because they had committed sexual misconduct with other
  people's wives. Then, the king came to realize the depravity of the
  deed and the severity of the punishment. So, he decided then and there
  that he would no longer covet another man's wife.
  http://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutta/KN/Dhammapada.Verse_60.story.htm

As for other realms, hungry ghosts and devas are also said to recall the kamma  that brought them there. Petavatthu and Vimanavatthu provide a number of stories of monks who encountered such beings and heard their stories.


text:
Can one with eczema become a monk?
According to this site, one of the questions asked at ordination is "do you have eczema?" to which the reply must be "No, Venerable" in order to ordain. Is this accurate? Is it the case the one with eczema cannot ever become a monk?

See also Can I ordain if i have psoriasis?

An explanation (including the origin story) of this rule is given on pages 194 through 195 of The
Buddhist
Monastic
Code II -- The Khandhaka Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
It says,

Eczema covers a wide variety of skin diseases, differing from those included under
  “leprosy” in that they are not debilitating and do not ulcerate or ooze. Thus ringworm
  and athlete’s foot would come under this category. As under the preceding category,
  small, non-spreading infestations in an area covered when fully robed would be
  allowable.

The degree of strict interpretation of such rules largely depends on the monastery, tradition and abbot under whom one ordains. Most monastic orders I know adapt these rules to suit their circumstance in practice.
In the link you've quoted a reasonable explanation is offered

There are bhikkhus who could enter the sangha exclusively to benefit
  from care by doctors who provide free health care to the bhikkhus.
  Others could enter to elude legal obligations. To avoid problems of
  this type, in the first part of the procedure the postulant is asked
  fifteen questions, which he must be able to answer satisfactorily in
  order to be accepted.

Pragmatism vs dogmatism is a common theme in all religions. The Buddha warns about falling into the textbook learning trap on several occasions. His teaching fundamentally is about right action stemming from right intention cultivated through direct insight.
In the order of Plum Village, established by Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh, all monks are covered by basic health insurance (as mandated by French law (h/t @chrisw)).

I'm guessing that such rules were the compulsions of "maintaining the health of the flock/herd by sacrificing the individual". In those ancient days when antibiotics and anti-fungal creams were undiscovered, the teachers had the duty of constantly ensuring the physical well-being of the monks and disciples in the monastery by eliminating contagious diseases. Such practical/physical problems and challenges may have taken precedence over philosophical concerns on a day-to-day basis, and such rules, though situational, may have been worded as absolutes.
We don't know the historical context when such rules were written, and one can only speculate. I am speculating that in some decades or centuries when skin diseases assumed epidemic proportions, these rules may have been written, and may have seemed like absolute imperatives at the time. Later on, the threat of skin diseases may have diminished somewhat, but, in the possible absence of a system within the Sangha to review, amend or cull the rules that had lost their need or context, such rules may have become frozen in time, and may even have acquired the halo of ancient-therefore-immutable.
I don't have any authorities to cite.


text:
Is there a middle way between working towards personal liberation and liberation for all sentient beings?
I may be a little off-mark here, but if I understand correctly there are two broad opinions on liberation. The first where a practitioner works towards her own liberation (the way of the Sravaka or Pratyek-Buddha) and the second where they work towards the liberation of all sentient being (the way of the Boddhisattva).
Is there a middle way between these two? Perhaps surrendering a specific desire and to work towards removing one's defilements and allow liberation to come when it does and as many sentient beings be helped as possible.

Many thanks to everyone who answered. All the answers got me to think of the issue in different ways and to refer to Suttas to get a better understanding.
I recently came upon this article on the Bodhisattva Vows, and Hui-neng's explanation finally lit the lightbulb for me. Perhaps this is what Andrei and Buddo also meant.

Beginning students commonly ask how they can honestly vow to save all
  beings. It sounds like missionary arrogance. Hui-neng offers a
  response: "You are saving them in your own mind." It is bodhichitta
  that you are cultivating—your own aspiration for wisdom and
  compassion, and your determination to practice it in the world as best
  you can.

There is no conflict, the dichotomy is false and is based on incorrect understanding. As Buddha said in Sedaka Sutta:

When watching after yourself, you watch after others. When watching after others, you watch after yourself.
And how do you watch after others when watching after yourself? Through cultivating, through developing, through pursuing. This is how you watch after others when watching after yourself.
"And how do you watch after yourself when watching after others? Through endurance, through harmlessness, through a mind of goodwill, & through sympathy. This is how you watch after yourself when watching after others.

Thanks Andrei, can you please elaborate a bit from the perspective of the path of the Bodhisattva vs. the path of the PratyekaBuddha.

Dhammapada verse 166
For the sake of another's benefit, however great it may be, do not neglect one's own (moral) benefit. Clearly perceiving one's own benefit one should make every effort to attain it.

My own approach is to help others, but when it's not possible, or if such help, though well intentioned will not be effective, and worse, if it will harm me (morally), then I choose personal liberation. It's a case by case thing, no single answer for all situations. Compassion towards all should mean compassion towards oneself too. To not be captured by either extreme is the essence of Buddhist wisdom.
The whole of Buddhism is the middle way. Initially, when someone is introduced to Buddhist ideas it can be explained in stark contrasts to help the learner understand. As learning matures though one must learn to deftly weigh the situation and choose the teaching appropriately.
The middle way teaching is to cut through this morass of opposites. The middle way is not the half point, or doing things in half measure, or being confused.
See Dharma talk by Thích Nhất Hạnh on the Sutra on the Middle way Part 1 | Part 2
The middle way is not a simplistic teaching, it is not mere common sense. It is perhaps the most sophisticated of Buddha's teachings, requiring a working understanding of both emptiness and dependant origination. In the above talk Thầy Nhất Hạnh so eloquently teaches it, do read it.

Thanks Buddho, I guess what you are saying closely reflects the philosophy of enlightened self-interest. Would this totally preclude the way of the Bodhisattva, because Bodhicitta as I understand it cares only for others?

That's an extreme position, and Buddhism isn't about extreme stances. The nature of Bodhicitta too is a very deep concept, requiring quite a lot of practice to fully realize. If understood correctly these ideas aren't in conflict, they help and support each other, how else can they be? Please also see, Discourse on better way to catch a snake

It depends on what you or your school has decided about the nature of who we really are. If we are so throughly interconnected, interdepedent, either in a Huayen way or maybe just as one big shared soul, (albeit a changeable, mortal one) then the relevant unit for liberation is all of us. Either we all make it to the other side or none of us do.
The middle way applied outside of it's original domain, debauchery vs asceticism, can lead to some weird results. The sum divided by two of any pair of actions that are opposing on some scale isn't necessarily going to be the point of wisdom or even coherent. Should I take a girlfriend? Well, how about for 1/2 the time. Or 1/2 a girlfriend. Shall I buy a car? Well, I'll buy 1/2 car.
(Mahayana thinking in general are often at danger of this, especially when applying sunyata/emptiness to things outside of its original domain-- the investigation of experience.)
The logic of the Bodhisattva vow leads people towards various theories of univeralism. The Lotus Sutra is a good example, where it is posited that the other two paths (arhat and pratyekabuddha) are illusory, rest areas on the way to full Buddhahood.
In the Lotus Sutra, and other Mahayana systems, the difficulty level of achieving full Buddhahood declined, where it sufficied to have faith in the Lotus Sutra, or where it sufficed to do nothing at all and rely on Amida's vow, and in many text I read, I feel like it is saying that vows and bodhicitta are like lighting the fuse on dynamite, once it is started, it creates an inevitable chain reaction. So the task of the Bodhisattva is to light these fuses more than to work on each step of everone's enlightenment. (That said,  in both the Brahma Net Sutra, Avatamsaka, etc, the lay and monastic bodhisattva is expected to above all teach as the primary way of helping others reach the other side.)

Well there's got to be skill in applying the middle way - it's not the half way as some imply. As a rule all ascetics in India of the time and even today are celibate, because of the generally accepted belief of celibacy leading to mental purity. Thus the middle way for the girl friend question is not about whether to have one, but whether or not to engage in corporeal mortification or penance that would harm the self.


text:
How does one cultivate uplifted energy (paggaha)?
In the sutta quoted here the Buddha recommends cultivating in equal measure concentration, equanimity and uplifted energy.
As far as I know, in order to develop concentration one focuses the mind on an immobile object like a kasina, and for developing equanimity one observes the rise and fall of the breath.
Similarly, what practice can one perform in order to cultivate uplifted energy? Would shraddha (pious faith) and belief in the dhamma qualify? Or does it refer to moment to moment mindfulness?
Is there a specific meditation practice recommended?

"A monk intent on heightened mind should attend periodically to three themes: He should attend periodically to the theme of concentration; he should attend periodically to the theme of uplifted energy; he should attend periodically to the theme of equanimity. If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of uplifted energy, it is possible that his mind would tend to restlessness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of equanimity, it is possible that his mind would not be rightly concentrated for the ending of the fermentations. But when he attends periodically to the theme of concentration, attends periodically to the theme of uplifted energy, attends periodically to the theme of equanimity, his mind is pliant, malleable, luminous, & not brittle. It is rightly centered for the stopping of the fermentations.

SOURCE: Nimitta Sutta: Themes - AN 3.100 (xi-xv) PTS: A i 255 Thai 3.103

@Buddho, this is viriya you are asking about, right?

@AndreiVolkov Viriya would probably be some of it but not all of it - since here the effort is translated from paggaha - see a correlation here  http://i.imgur.com/lm2unFz.png?1

paggaha, got it

From your quote, it sounds like the lack of uplifted energy is the hindrance of sloth and torpor, one of the five hindrances to practice. To quote Ajahn Brahmavamso:

Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind
  which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. The
  Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell,
  unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In meditation,
  it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even lead to
  falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!
Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were.
  Setting a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at
  hand. A young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy,
  because its world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's
  life, or one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see
  ever new angles and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from
  sloth and torpor, alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop
  delight in whatever one is doing by training one's perception to see
  the beautiful in the ordinary, thereby generating the interest
  which avoids the half-death that is sloth and torpor.
The mind has two main functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of
  meditation is to calm the 'doing' to complete tranquillity while
  maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth and torpor occur when one carelessly
  calms both the 'doing' and the 'knowing', unable to distinguish
  between them.
Sloth and torpor is a common problem which can creep up and smother
  one slowly. A skilful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the
  first signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach
  and take evasive action before it's too late. Like coming to a fork in
  a road, one can take that mental path leading away from sloth and
  torpor. Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body and mind, too
  stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to spot any
  insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious time.

Thank you, not looking a gift horse in the mouth etc., but I was hoping for a more comprehensive guide to uplifting energy.

I think something is lost in translation here. It has been mentioned before that Thanissaro Bhikkhu sometimes is off the mark in his translations. If we look at some other translations of the Nimitta Sutta - Piya Tan argues that the three bases mentioned in the sutta are: Basis of samadhi, The effort sign and The equanimity sign. So 'uplifted energy' here equates to 'the effort sign'. He argues further that the three nimitta are specific conditions for meditation in the sutta and that they are conflated with the 5 spiritual faculties.

The three “bases” of the Nimitta Sutta are, in fact, conflated forms of the five spiritual faculties. The Sutta’s commentary (AA 2:364) glosses nimitta with karana, whose meanings include the following: (1) cause, reason, ground, motive, means; (2) valid reason or argument; (3) event, matter; (4) proper action,
  task (DP, abridged). Here nimitta is best taken in the sense of “means,” since it refers to conditions for mental focus. Namitta Sutta - Translated & annotated by Piya Tan

So we end up with:

Basis of samadhi = Faith & Samadhi
The effort sign = Effort
The equanimity sign = Mindfulness & Wisdom

In this context, rather than being 'states' to be attained, as you seem to allude to in your question, the three bases point to a particular mental orientation in meditation session itself. Applying too much concentration, energy or equanimity in a sitting leads to unsatisfactory results. This is illustrated further in the Namitta Sutta by Buddha in the simile of gold refining:

Suppose, bhikshus, a goldsmith or a goldsmith’s apprentice prepares a furnace. Having prepared it, he starts a blaze in the furnace mouth. Having started the blaze, he places the gold [in a crucible] in the furnace mouth.
  From time to time, he blows on it.
  From time to time, he sprinkles water on it.
  From time to time, he simply looks on at it.
  Bhikshus, if the goldsmith or the goldsmith’s apprentice were only to blow on that gold, it is possible that it would burn.
  Bhikshus, if the goldsmith or the goldsmith’s apprentice were only to sprinkle water on that gold, it is possible that it would cool down.
  Bhikshus, if the goldsmith or the goldsmith’s apprentice only to look on that gold, it is possible that it would not come to full refinement.
  But if he were
  only from time to time to blow on it,
  only from time to time to sprinkle water on it,
  only from time to time to simply look on,
  the gold would then become pliant, malleable and bright, uncorrupted, and it could be properly worked on. Whatever ornament that he wishes to make, be it a diadem, a gold plate, earrings, a necklace, or a gold chain, that gold can now be used for that purpose.

So concentration, energy or equanimity need to be applied skillfully in the moments when they are appropriate to deepen the meditation (refine the gold).
This brings to mind intensifying in the "The Brahmin's Thread" method, one of four methods to set up Samadhi in the Mahamudra Tradition:

It is necessary for intensifying and easing up to become balanced, so set it up as if spinning a Brahman’s thread. If there is too much intensifying when meditating, thoughts go astray. If there is too much easing up, you get slothful, so make intensifying and easing up balanced. Moreover, a beginner initially intensifies to cut off moment-by-moment occurrences and then, when overdoing it, ease up and tries not to react to whatever has arisen. After alternating between one and the other of these, try to make intensifying and easing up balanced. Intensifying and easing up the mind again and again like this is called “spinning the Brahman’s thread.” Pointing Out the Great Way - Dan Brown (p. 244)

I like this part of a quote from Lanka's answer to How to “attend to the perception of light”?

Through right reflection in inceptive energy and similar states of mind is brought about the overthrow of sloth and torpor. Inceptive energy is the effort first set afoot. Exertion is more powerful than the inceptive energy because it leaves indolence behind. And because of its assailing further and further of the destructive condition, progressive endeavor is more powerful than exertion. By the exercise of right reflection intensely on this threefold strenuousness sloth and torpor are cast out. Therefore the Blessed One said that the condition for keeping out new sloth and torpor, and for casting out sloth and torpor that is old, is abundant right reflection on the element of inceptive energy, of exertion and of progressive endeavor.

Here, in my understanding:

inceptive energy is the enthusiastic force of new beginning, rooted in faith,
exertion is sustained effort, rooted in conviction,
progressive endeavor is the positive reinforcement from seeing oneself making progress.

It would be interesting to see someone explore the notion of progressive endeavor. What is the Pali word? Is it used in more places in the Canon?
I personally connect generation of uplifted energy with the practice of Jhana, specifically the First and Second Jhanas (Third and Forth being more focused on Equanimity):
First Jhana:

Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; just so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of [directed thought and evaluation on one's successful] withdrawal [from sensuality, from unskillful qualities].

Second Jhana:

Just like a lake with spring-water welling up from within, having no inflow from east, west, north, or south, and with the skies periodically supplying abundant showers, so that the cool fount of water welling up from within the lake would permeate and pervade, suffuse and fill it with cool waters, there being no part of the lake unpervaded by the cool waters; just so, the monk permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure [=unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance].

In support of this, there are many places in the Canon that speak about connection of joy (gladness, rapture) with concentration e.g. Vatthupama Sutta:

When he has given up, expelled, released, abandoned, and relinquished [the imperfections of the mind] in part, he considers thus: ‘I am possessed of perfect confidence in the Buddha,’ and he gains inspiration in the meaning, gains inspiration in the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is glad, rapture is born in him; in one who is rapturous, the body becomes tranquil; one whose body is tranquil feels pleasure; in one who feels pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated.

This looks like a perfect description of the First Jhana to me.

Uplifted energy in your reference to the Jhanas does make some sense but is this not pīti and sukha which arise spontaneously in Jhana? These are mentioned so frequently throughout the Suttas with reference to right concentration that is unlikely they would not be mentioned specifically in the Nimitta Sutta as well.

@Devindra - they are all connected, see e.g. Vatthupama Sutta: “When he has given up, expelled, released, abandoned, and relinquished [the imperfections of the mind] in part, he considers thus: ‘I am possessed of perfect confidence in the Buddha,’ and he gains inspiration in the meaning, gains inspiration in the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is glad, rapture is born in him; in one who is rapturous, the body becomes tranquil; one whose body is tranquil feels pleasure; in one who feels pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated."

so in this way 'uplifting energy' could as easily be equated with the energy of Tummo or Kundalini?

I don't think they are very similar. Tummo/Chakra work is a lot more physical and "uplifting energy" is emotional/mood thing.

Ok I see what you mean :)

My own experience (of energy) matches a lot with your quote from the Vatthupama Sutta.

Pali words for inceptive energy is Ārabbha-dhātū, sustained effort is Parakkama-dhātu and  progressive endeavor is Nikkama-dhātu.

The Right Effort with a view to develop Mastery Over the Mind (sometimes translated as Concentration) is uplifting energy.
More particularly this is the effort to abaddon and prevent unwholesomeness arising effort must be applied to develop the wholesome qualities of Mindfulness on the 4 Frames of Mindfulness pertaining to Arising and Passing Away of Phenomena, equanimity and active calming the Fabrication - by claiming the breath to calm bodily fabrications, anchoring the mind to calm verbal fabrication and diluting perception and sensations to calm metal fabrications - thus increasing Concentration based on the arising and passing away of phenomena pertaining to the aggregates. If you are using something like a Ksina to develop concentration you should be looking at arising and passing nature of your mental perception of the image, otherwise just choosing the breath or sensation one a part of the body like the centre of the upper lip maybe more advisable. Also before coming to calming bodily, verbal and mental fabrication you have practice moral restraint to limit unwholesome bodily, verbal and mental action. Also your should actively direct your effort to abandon the 5 Hindrances by balancing Wisdom with Faith, Effort with Samadhi and the 7 Enlightenment Factors.
You have to check at regular intervals by reviewing whether your are applying effort to maintain equanimity and mindfulness hence not creating new fabrication from stimuli, actively calming the fabrications hence increasing concentration and one-pointedness on the 4 Frames of Mindfulness. If you do this too often then you get frustrated as you do not see progress and you are expecting to see some progress. Also to move to higher concentration you have to abandon applied effort to maintaining connectedness. If your effort is lax then your might will wander away mostly to unwholesome thoughts.
See:

(Magga) Vibhaṅga Sutta
Cūla Vedalla Sutta
Nimitta Sutta
Samma,ditthi Sutta - Right View should define what you practice
(Āhāra) Taṇhā Sutta

This sutta is mentioned in Visuddhimagga page 242 paragraphs 74,75 and 76 as part of a training process in mindfulness on the foulness of 32 parts of the body.
Page 238 says,

Now, a clansman who, as a beginner, wants to develop this meditation
  subject should go to a good friend of the kind already described
  (III.61–73) and learn it. And the teacher who expounds it to him
  should tell him the sevenfold skill in learning and the tenfold skill
  in giving attention.

Sevenfold skill in learning of the 32 parts are,
 (1) as verbal recitation,
(2) as mental recitation, (3) as to colour, (4) as to shape, (5) as to direction, (6) as
to location, (7) as to delimitation.

Having thus told the sevenfold skill in learning, he should tell the
  tenfold skill in giving attention as follows: (1) as to following the
  order, (2) not too quickly, (3) not too slowly (4) as to warding off
  distraction, (5) as to surmounting the concept, (6) as to successive
  leaving, (7) as to absorption, (8)–(10) as to the three suttantas.

The person who develops the first 6 parts in the tenfold training achieves appana samadhi (7. absorption). In the pali version of the book this is mentioned as appanāto.
The aim of the three suttas, 8. higher consciousness, 9. coolness, and 10. skill in the enlightenment factors, have as their purpose the linking of energy with concentration. Nimitta sutta should be studied to understand on balancing the high consciousness (Jhana).

Herein, this sutta should be understood to deal with higher
  consciousness: “Bhikkhus, there are three signs that should be given attention from
  time to time by a bhikkhu intent on higher consciousness. The sign of
  concentration should be given attention from time to time, the sign of
  exertion should be given attention from time to time, the sign of
  equanimity should be given attention from time to time. [247] If a
  bhikkhu intent on higher consciousness gives attention only to the
  sign of concentration, then his consciousness may conduce to idleness.
  If a bhikkhu intent on higher consciousness gives attention only to
  the sign of exertion, then his consciousness may conduce to agitation.
  If a bhikkhu intent on higher consciousness gives attention only to
  the sign of equanimity, then his consciousness may not become rightly
  concentrated for the destruction of cankers. But, bhikkhus, when a
  bhikkhu intent on higher consciousness gives attention from time to
  time to the sign of concentration … to the sign of exertion … to the
  sign of equanimity, then his consciousness becomes malleable, wieldy
  and bright, it is not brittle and becomes rightly concentrated for the
  destruction of cankers.
“Bhikkhus, just as a skilled goldsmith or goldsmith’s apprentice prepares his furnace and heats it up and puts crude gold into it with
  tongs; and he blows on it from time to time, sprinkles water on it
  from time to time, and looks on at it from time to time; and if the
  goldsmith or goldsmith’s apprentice only blew on the crude gold, it
  would burn and if he only sprinkled water on it, it would cool down,
  and if he only looked on at it, it would not get rightly refined; but,
  when the goldsmith or goldsmith’s apprentice blows on the crude gold from time to
  time, sprinkles water on it from time to time, and looks on at it from time to time,
  then it becomes malleable, wieldy and bright, it is not brittle, and it submits
  rightly to being wrought; whatever kind of ornament he wants to work it into,
  whether a chain or a ring or a necklace or a gold fillet, it serves his purpose.
“So too, bhikkhus, there are three signs that should be given attention from
  time to time by a bhikkhu intent on higher consciousness … becomes rightly
  concentrated for the destruction of cankers. [248] He attains the ability to be a
  witness, through realization by direct-knowledge, of any state realizable by
  direct-knowledge to which he inclines his mind, whenever there is occasion”

The Buddha used always the Goad-stick, and never candies... death man (still) walking!
What ever forces samvega ("fear") in regard of the world, thinking about sickness, oldage, death, the endless causes of suffering, reflecting that there is only this path, grave fear of not catching the leaving train and to remember how seldom the gain of a human existence, not stupid, meeting even the Dhamma, is. At least that neither kusala citta not the possibility to escape is for sure.
What ever else makes one see once head burning, all of that, in relation of seeing an escape, is nurishment for increasing energy. Like a man is capable to gain outstanding power and energy sin face of death or seeing his beloved in trouble. Without samvega energy required can not be found and lazyness will burn chances down.
A useful reading since people don't know about the need of samvega at large: Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada, since you can not trust your ideas of how to use energy for happiness alone.
So hury up, the next hour of a good existence is not for sure! See the death man walking!
[Not given for trade, exchange or stacks but only for release]

Buddha said about nimitta and not the method of obtaining actual dhamma. Because its matter of practice.
Just take the example of samadhi nimita. Now we very well know that samadhi is not attained by nimitta. nor anywhere in the tripitak there is a mention that first set samadhi nimitta to establish samadhi. There are various other method discussed in detail about how to achieve samadhi.
kālena kālaṃ samādhi-nimittaṃ manasi kātabbaṃ,
   He should attend periodically to the theme of concentration;
kālena kālaṃ paggaha-nimittaṃ manasi kātabbaṃ,
   he should attend periodically to the theme of uplifted energy;
kālena kālaṃ upekkhā-nimittaṃ manasi kātabbaṃ.

What he says is time periodically create nimitta of paggaha. i.e to say he should create mark of paggaha.
Now mark of paggaha means some mark, clue, or sign which gives hint that paggaha exist.  how you will establish paggaha is upto you.
Paggaha means arousing energy in you. There are various means to do so. and it depends person to person. Some one who is master of kundalini energy can achieve it that way.
for me particularly when I bring my attention to mula-dhara chakra, and shift it up in spine I easily get flood of energy in me.
The other method that also works for me is to spread awareness to whole body. or increase the filed of awareness. you may do body scan for only sensation related to heaviness.
You may include more dimension like sound, sight etc. or arouse yourself by adding mental object i.e vitaka-vicara pertaining to practice. you may add words as label like energy, wakefulness etc. whatever suits you. whatever works for you.

It would be chanda that might lead to viriya . One must have strong chanda and interest in one's own practice.


text:
What are the unthinkable (acinteyya) dhamma?
I have heard there are 4 unthinkable (acinteyya) concepts in Buddhism. Not Acintya.
The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:[5]

The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha
  develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

Why It says Unthinkable?

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Unthinkables

@inzenity Thankyou for the link. This link says "Anithya" as acinteyya dhamma. i think it is thinkable.

The reason is given in the sutta itself. Pondering on these brings madness and frustration for someone with an undeveloped mind.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html#fnt-1


text:
Significance of the word "wealth" in Jaravagga

The Story of the Son of Mahadhana
Neither living the chaste life
  nor gaining wealth in their youth,
  they waste away like old herons
  in a dried-up lake
  depleted of fish.
Neither living the chaste life
  nor gaining wealth in their youth,
  they lie around,
  misfired from the bow,
  sighing over old times.

I imagined "gaining wealth in their youth" would mean spiritual wealth, after all a lot of materially rich old people I know do sigh at old age, because material pleasures are often best enjoyed in youth.
Yet, the back story seems to indicate the Buddha did mean material wealth, which is odd. Granted,  being rich and old is better than poor and old, still, old age to the unwise is great suffering.
Of course, Buddhism doesn't ab initio criticize wealth, or beauty. They are said to accrue as a result of good deeds, and are desirable as long as they don't interfere in bettering one's virtues and mind.
Still, it's not a perfectly flawless argument to equate pious virtue and shrewdness in wealth. Billionaires could even make a case of being equal to Arhats, more or less, as I currently understand this verse.
This is made all the more odd on account of the Buddha's own rejection of wealth and kingdom.
Can someone shed more light? Are there two sets of guidelines that the Buddha advocated? One for those enmeshed in Samsara, and another for those gone forth?

The Story of the Son of Mahadhana
While residing at the Migadaya wood, the Buddha uttered Verses (155) and (156) of this book, with reference to the son of Mahadhana, a rich man from Baranasi.
The son of Mahadhana did not study while he was young; when he came of age he married the daughter of a rich man, who, like him, also had no education. When the parents on both sides died, they inherited eighty crores from each side and so were very rich. But both of them were ignorant and knew only how to spend money and not how to keep it or to make it grow. They just ate and drank and had a good time, squandering their money. When they had spent all, they sold their fields and gardens and finally their house. Thus, they became very poor and helpless; and because they did not know how to earn a living they had to go begging. One day, the Buddha saw the rich man's son leaning against a wall of the monastery, taking the leftovers given him by the samaneras; seeing him, the Buddha smiled.
The Venerable Ananda asked the Buddha why he smiled, and the Buddha replied, "Ananda, look at this son of a very rich man; he had lived a useless life, an aimless life of pleasure. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the first stage of his life he would have been a top-ranking rich man; or if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have been an arahat, and his wife could have been an anagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the second stage of his life he would have been a second rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been an anagami, and his wife could have been a sakadagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the third stage of his life he would have been a third rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been a sakadagami, and his wife could have been a sotapanna. However, because he had done nothing in all the three stages of his life he had lost all his worldly riches, he had also lost all opportunities of attaining any of the Maggas and Phalas."

I'd like to contrast this with another verse from the Dhammapada which is an emphatic put down of worldly gains.

Dhammapada Verse 178
  Anathapindikaputtakala Vatthu
Pathabya ekarajjena
  saggassa gamanena va
  sabbalokadhipacce na
  sotapattiphalam varam.
Verse 178: Far better than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going to the abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the entire universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.

The PTS dictionary says,

Dhana (nt.) [Ved. dhana; usually taken to dhā (see dadhāti) as "stake, prize at game, booty," cp. pradhāna & Gr. qe/ma; but more likely in orig. meaning "grain, possession of corn, crops etc.," cp. Lith. dūna bread, Sk. dhānā pl. grains & dhañña=dhana -- like, i. e. corn, grain] wealth, usually wealth of money, riches, treasures. 1. Lit. D i.73 (sa˚); M ii.180.; A iii.222; iv.4 sq.; Nd2 135 (+yasa, issariya etc.) Th 2, 464 (+issariya); J i.225 (paṭhavigataŋ karoti: hide in the ground), 262, 289; ii.112; iv.2; Sn 60, 185, 302; Pv ii.610; DhA i.238. Often in combn aḍḍha mahaddhana mahābhoga to indicate immense wealth (see aḍḍha) PvA 3, 214 etc. (see also below ˚dhañña). -- 2. fig. Used in the expression sattavidha -- ariya -- dhana "the 7 fold noble treasure" of the good qualities or virtues, viz. saddhā, cāga etc. (see enumd under cāga) D iii.163, 164, 251; VvA 113; ThA 240.

In summary it means something like "treasure": whether that's money or good qualities or virtues.
Some comments:

It can't mean (wouldn't make sense meaning) literally only 'money' because it says, " If he had learnt to look after his riches in the first stage of his life...,  if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have been an arahat" because though bhikkhus "accumulate virtue" they don't "look after money".
An origin story of the Buddha was that someone (I have forgotten who) prophesied that he would become a world-ruler or a spiritual emancipator (and his father wanted the former which is why he tried to keep him isolated in his palace, unaware of the wide world and of its spiritual needs).
According to what I've read e.g. (The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity) Buddha doesn't condemn riches for the layperson. Although they're not ultimately or permanently satisfying (which is a reason why he suggests 'renunciation' instead, for monks), but riches are useful and there's some advice in the canon about how a lay person should fulfill their role within society.

I wonder if these stories or characters aren't apocryphal - the rich man is named Mahadhana. Translated - Maha is great or grand, and dhana is wealth. Unless it was a self assumed title, it'd be very odd to run into a rich man who was named "great rich man". This isn't the first instance I've noticed this form of addressing in the Dhp. either.

Yes, or if you were fabulously rich perhaps you might choose "Mahadhana" as your son's name, who knows. Or maybe it was a nick-name (a use-name) like Gautama or Mahatma.

Gauthama wasn't a nickname, it was his family name. In fact all Buddhas in history are known from their family names.

@dmsp I thought that "Shakyamuni" was his "family name" i.e. the name of his clan. Anyway, apparently (according to Wikipedia anyway) "Gotama" is a name with a meaning: "a person who dispels darkness by his brilliance, such as using the light of their knowledge to dispel the gloom of ignorance".

Shakya is his clan hence Shakyamuni, but Gauthama is his family hence Siddhartha Gauthama is his full name.

This is getting off-topic but see also Gautam (given name).

This is strange. See this. The wikipedia article must be wrong. Also Pajapati Gotami is his step mom, it's the female version of the family name Gotama.

According to Jains, Gotama is Buddha's mom's (and step-mom's) family name which he adopted as a nickname in her memory. Apparently his father's family name was Shakya. "Muni" is a suffix-epithet for "wise" or "sage".

My take on this is as follows.
According to Dhp 75 (quoted below), the highest path is pursuing the holy life as a monk, and achieving progress on the Noble Eightfold Path. This is the best.

One is the quest for worldly gain, and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple
of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim, but develop
detachment instead.

The second best is living the life of the lay Dhamma or faith follower and accumulating wealth, as stated in Sigalovada Sutta, Dighajanu Sutta, Adiya Sutta, Anana Sutta and so on. The lay follower must at least observe the five precepts and Right Livelihood (according to Vanijja Sutta). Please see this answer for sutta quotes and explanation.
There's a difference between the noble path followed by monks and the non-noble path followed by lay followers. Please see this answer for sutta quotes and explanation.
The worst is the case of Dhp 155-156 (quoted below), which is a person who in his youth, pursues excellence in neither the holy life nor the worldly life. He has wasted his time.

Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish.

Those who in youth have not lead the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, lie sighing over the past, like worn out arrows (shot
from) a bow.

This means that the word "wealth" in Dhp 155-156 of the Jaravagga indeed refers to material wealth, as per translations.

the word in Dhp 75 is "lābha".

The Pali word in the Dhammapada 155-156 is dhana.
Suttas about material wealth (at least the following DN 31; MN 135; AN 3.19; AN 4.62; SN 37.30; SN 42.15; etc) appear to use the word "bhoga".
Other suttas (SN 1.73) use the word vitta.
Suttas about spiritual wealth (at least the following AN 5.47; AN 7.1; AN 7.5; Dhp 26; etc) use the word dhana.
To definitively answer this question, a thorough examination, similar to the above, is probably required.


text:
"Marks of Existence" and "Gates To Enlightenment", are they Same?
Three gates and Four marks  are shown using these tearms -Impermanence,  Suffering, Non-self, Voidness, Nirvana,Shunyata (Emptiness).
Some questions discuss them separatly. But some conflicts can see.
Quote from FullPeaceOrg

The Three marks of existence (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa),
  are these three characteristics (Theravada)
Impermanence (Anicca)
Suffering or unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha)
Non-self or not-self (Anatta)

This is a central teaching in Buddhism - completely understanding
  these three leads to the liberation of Nirvana/Nibbana. All sentient
  beings experience these marks of existence

Quote from Andrei

In an interesting twist, my present teacher, who comes from a
  Taoism-influenced non-sectarian tradition, speaks of Three Gates To
  Enlightenment, the experiential realizations one must go through on
  one's way to Completion:

Pain or Suffering. One must realize that life is painful and accept pain as necessary condition for one's growth. This involves
  dropping resistance that comes from seeing pain as important factor of
  one's decisions.
Impermanence or Transience. One must fully accept that nothing is permanent in one's life, and admit the inevitability of death. This
  involves dropping attachments to what one holds as dear.
Nothingness or Voidness. One must go through the realization that life is pointless and has no meaning in the absolute sense. This
  involves dropping fundamental preconceptions or imperatives about the
  purpose of one's life.

Quote from Three Marks of Mahayana

Most of the time in Mahayana (both Vajrayana and Zen) I hear of Four Marks of Existence: Transience, Unsatisfactoriness, Corelessness, and
  Nirvana. All four are subsumed under Shunyata (Emptiness) which is
  equated with Pratitya-Samutpada (Dependent Co-Arising).

Is something missing there?
Is there any common agreement?

Pretty generally speaking, realising the truth is enlightenment. So if the three(or four) marks of existence are true then realising them would be the gates to enlightenment.
The different sects of buddhism are forming distinct views and belief systems, which is not wise, this is what results in very confusing and difficult reading.


text:
Is Mind in Buddhism connected to Brain (the physical organ)?
According to Buddhism, is the Mind (known by Citta, Manas, Vinnana or any other name that corresponds to Mind/Consciousness) connected with the organ called Brain?
Is the brain (or loosely speaking, head) referred to in Buddhist writings as the seat of mind, consciousness or the cause of human behaviour?

I think that the "intellect" sense-organ is the closest you will find to the mention of a brain in the literature. The buddha probably had no reason to confuse people by introducing and then debunking yet another swamp for delusions to cling to.

Related: Does it matter if the mind is neurologically originated or not?

There is a nice analysis in this article here. But basically, the Buddha said:

This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.

My comment: mind is an informational phenomena. The information is made of relations that are passed from one carrier (not necessarily human or even a sentient being!) to another, through various media. In case of a sentient being, body is one of such temporary carriers of the information. When information is embodied in a living organism, it is known as mind.

According to Abhidhamma commentary it seems that the seat of consciousness is in the heart. However, in the suttas Buddha seems to have only mentioned ‘yam rupam nissaya’—depending on that ‘rupa’.

98. Hadayavatthu — heart-base.
According to the commentators hadayavatthu is the seat of
consciousness. Tradition says that within the cavity of the heart
there is some blood, and depending on which lies the seat of
consciousness. It was this cardiac theory that prevailed in the
Buddha’s time, and this was evidently supported by the Upanishads.
The
Buddha could have adopted this popular theory, but He did not commit
Himself.
Mr. Aung in his Compendium argues that the Buddha was silent
on this point. He did not positively assert that the seat of
consciousness was either in the heart or in the brain. In the
Dhammasangani the term hadayavatthu has purposely been omitted. In the
Patthana, instead of using hadaya as the seat of consciousness, the
Buddha has simply stated ‘yam rupam nissaya’—depending on that ‘rupa’.
Mr. Aung’s opinion is that the Buddha did not want to reject the
popular theory. Nor did He advance a new theory that brain is the seat
of consciousness as is regarded by modern scientists
Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf page 228

So, are you saying that The Buddha never posited a connection between brain and mind? Kindly clarify.

@KrishnarajRao Well you cannot say like that, different functions of the mind associate different places. For example, you see an object with eye-consciousness (viññāna) that arises in the eye (cakkhuppasada). You recognize the object through perception (sañña) that arises in the brain. Your subsequent thought process (Citta, cetasika) arise in the heart-base. That's why buddha says nama associates a rupa. But the seat of consciousness is the heart-base because bhavanga-citta and other citta, cetasika arise and cease there.

This answer suggests there's not much explanation of any such connection in the Theravada texts:

I think the problem stems from a desire to know the mechanistic workings of reality; e.g. how one thing affects or effects another, rather than simply that it does so. Buddhism is, for the most part, terribly devoid of explanations about the former, since it is ultimately a practical path.

Those Buddhist doctrines do mention the senses and sense-organs (e.g. the eye) though.

This answer suggests that modern Buddhists know of some such doctrines. See also for example Buddha's Brain: Neuroplasticity and Meditation; and for example the fact that this article which you liked was the Dalai Lama speaking at a meeting of the "Society for Neuroscience" in Washington.

Are you saying that other than the Dalai Lama and some discussions on the Stack Exchange itself, there appears to be nothing in Buddhist that relates the human mind to the organ called the brain? I will appreciate an unambiguous and candid answer.

I'm not saying that, no: only that these happen to be the only couple of examples that I'm aware of. The first is relevant because it's difficult to prove a negative (i.e. prove that scriptures don't say that, or prove that no scripture says that, given that the scriptures are so very voluminous). So by quoting Yuttadhammo I was trying to do the next best thing, instead of proving a negative, at least quoting a relatively expert opinion (Yuttadhammo being relatively expert). The second example, there's plenty (unknown to me and maybe too much to cite) of modern doctrine about brain ...

... function. I don't know how much of this modern physiological doctrine people would call Buddhist doctrine (perhaps it's difficult to delineate exactly what a "modern Buddhist" is and isn't).

I hope you will forgive me for persisting, Chris. But is it possible to make a statement that sounds like, "To the best of my knowledge and study, and within my limited understanding, it appears that Buddhist literature that relates the human mind to the organ called the brain is scarce. All such literature appears to be of recent origin i.e. originating in the last decade or so"? Would you consider such a position truthful and direct without being offensive?

@KrishnarajRao If that position resulted from the (lack of) answers on this site, that might be inferring too much; I don't know the history of Buddhist neuroscience. Yuttadhammo's might be an orthodox position i.e. that Buddhism can be practised without "relating the human mind to the organ called the brain".

The Buddha teaches the 31 parts of the body as mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta but  the brain is never mentioned. I am certain the brain isn't mentioned anywhere in the suttas.
The Buddha relates the mind with the whole body not any one part of it.

I think eye, nose, ears, tang, bran (mana) are consider as faculties(sense-organs).

In the Suttas, the brain is usually omitted when the parts of the body are listed (See DN 22, DN 28 and MN 119). The brain is added to the list in the commentaries (See Visuddhimagga VIII.44) and the description of the brain in Visuddhimagga VIII.126 makes no reference to consciousness... it likens the brain to bone marrow (where the bone itself would be the skull).
Mental States start to arise in the new existence immediately after conception. At that time, there is no brain (and no heart) to support these Mental States. This is why the Abhidhamma does not specify any specific organ as the base for the mind but rather uses the description, “that rūpa upon which the mind depends”.
According to the Abhidhamma, eye-consciousness arises dependent on eye-sensitivity, which is the sensitive part of the eye-organ (in modern parlance, the rods and cones of the retina). Similarly, ear-consciousness arises dependent on ear-sensitivity, and so on.
The term “Heart-base” is from the Commentary. The Dhammasaṅgaṇi omits “Heart-base” from the list of rūpa and the reference to “that rūpa upon which the mind depends” is from the Paṭṭhāna.
At the time of the Buddha, people recognized that sense data arose at different locations and needed to be combined. The only thing that they saw moving in the body was blood and the heart obviously plays an important role in moving the blood and this led to a cardio-centric view of the base of consciousness.

This question is about the role of the brain specifically, and about our normal lives long after birth.

I have edited my answer to explain more clearly. In the Suttas, the Abhidhamma and the commentary, there is no linkage between the brain and consciousness. Linking the two would not make sense because, according to Buddhism, consciousness arises at the moment of conception and continues as a stream after that.

I recently read this book ...
Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom
... where he says about it that it's very much linked.

All these are as of my understanding.
You are questioning about several things.
Citta - This is where generation of thoughts are flowing in a nonstop manner, As some readings, this is related to heart.
Manas - This can takes purposes and help other organs like eye to see and make vinnana,  This is brain.
Vinnana - This is a term which means, 'knowing' (Let's say we saw a girl, we know that this is a girl, that knowing is called 'Vinnana'. This is neither brain nor heart.

(Process is like this. Say there is a girl, and our eye and other
  things like line of sight, sufficient amount of light etc. Since all
  the requirements are completed, our eye collide with the sight of
  the girl. Then with the help of 'Manas' we identified this object as a
  girl. After that, according to the object and our mind, we generate
  either like, dislike or neutral thoughts about the object. Then these
  thoughts can be continue to lead for a Kamma  or just vanished)

This question is about the role of the brain specifically, and about our normal lives long after birth. –  Krishnaraj Rao
To answer this I use our community’s comments :
Buddhism can be practised without "relating the human mind to the organ called the brain". –  ChrisW
To the best of my knowledge and study, and within my limited understanding, it appears that Buddhist literature that relates the human mind to the organ called the brain is scarce.
However  the “Manasa” has considered as ‘mana’, ‘mano’.
According to Abhidhamma commentary it seems that the seat of consciousness is in the heart. However, in the suttas Buddha seems to have only mentioned ‘yam rupam nissaya’—depending on that ‘rupa’. - dmsp
The mind-body relationship happens at extremely fast speeds, in the laboratory of one's moment by moment experience, something like this: Eye consciousness(mind) makes contact with a rose that causes desire to have the rose(mind). That causes the arm to go reaching out(body) to pick the rose. - Uilium
different functions of the mind associate different places. For example, you see an object with eye-consciousness (viññāna) that arises in the eye (cakkhuppasada). You recognize the object through perception (sañña) that arises in the brain. Your subsequent thought process (Citta, cetasika) arise in the heart-base. That's why buddha says nama associates a rupa. But the seat of consciousness is the heart-base because bhavanga-citta and other citta, cetasika arise and cease there. –  dmsp
"intellect" sense-organ is the closest to the mention of a brain in the literature. –  Sam Reeve
So we consider a example. “Players can change,  but the team continues”.
Individual players may add or remove from the team time to time. After some
time there may be no any founders plays in the team. But the team may
continue many generations with it’s identity and some special qualities.

We can compare team as mind and players as thoughts.
mind is an informational phenomena. The information is made of relations that are passed from one carrier (not necessarily human or even a sentient being!) to another, through various media. In case of a sentient being, body is one of such temporary carriers of the information. When information is embodied in a living organism, it is known as mind.- Andrei Volkov
Here this phenomena is stated as consciousness.

Certainly, the start of life, at conception, is seen as involving the
  flux-of-consciousness, from a past life, entering the womb and, along
  with the requisite physical conditions, leading to the development of
  a new being in the womb:
   'Were consciousness, Ananda, not to fall into
  the mother's womb, would mind-and-body (nama-rupa) be constituted
  there?' 'It would not, Lord'. 'Were consciousness, having fallen into
  the mother's womb, to turn aside from it, would mind-and-body come to
  birth in this present state?'. 'It would not, Lord.' (D. II. 62-3
  http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha205.htm

physical reality clearly exists, as does mental reality; they also clearly interact with each other in a manner that is fairly easily definable. The problem comes when you try to know more beyond these simple facts, i.e. how and why they exist and interact the way they do. - yuttadhammo
Here that  phenomena  is describe as awareness.
One answer is that reality is neither primarily physical nor mind, but awareness. Looking at Physics, we see the two-slit experiment, which seems to indicate that objects such as photons are "aware" of their environment and "make choices".
So, the simplest answer is to remove the quotes. Every thing, down to the lowest level of being, has awareness, and makes choices. Done. - no comprende
In here that phenomena is considered as aggregates
The relationship between body and mind is well described by the Buddha in form of e.g. the 5 aggregates i.e., materiality, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness and Dependent Origination.- Lanka
Sometimes we need to engage with team. (means with players). So we have paradox. Say winning a goal by a player is a wining of the team.
Likewise
Citta -, .. related to heart. ..Manas - ..help ..eye to see .. make vinnana, This is brain..Vinnana -, 'knowing'  - John Fonseka
Mental States start to arise in the new existence immediately after conception ( Like TEAM). At that time, there is no brain (and no heart)( No PLAYERS In THE Team) to support these Mental States. This is why the Abhidhamma does not specify any specific organ as the base for the mind but rather uses the description, “that rūpa upon which the mind depends”- RobM

…Buddhist thinkers tried to analyse phenomena into their most basic
  units which they called dhammas and then attempted to describe their
  characteristics, their duration, their interaction with one another
  and their kammic results. Whereas the Buddha generally restricted
  himself to empirical experience, abhidhamma tends to be more
  speculative. Abhidhamma Studies, Nyanaponika, 1985.
  - See more at: http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=1#sthash.qwYypzzY.dpuf

Anyway  what is the reason for continuity of this phenomena?
Citta (mind) is not one of the khandhas,( aggregates), therefore what you know as 'mind' is not perception, thought and consciousness. It is like an evolving soul.(Like Team).- mad buddhist
…..the brain is the mind. I was so perturbed…- Sam Reeve
….this consciousness of mine is supported by it(?) and bound up with it. ..
The It is the “Root”.
In The Root of All Things

“He perceives the base of infinite consciousness as the base of
  infinite consciousness. Having perceived the base of infinite
  consciousness as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives
  himself as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself in
  the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself apart from
  the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives the base of infinite
  consciousness to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the base of infinite
  consciousness. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I
  say. suttacentral.net/en/mn1 –  Shrawaka

May All removes the Roots.
Not that [Mahayana] Buddhists deny the Absolute. What they deny is existence of independent "I" in the absolute sense. "I" is a label,(TEAM) a nominal designation that only exists relatively to other things(PLAYERS). However, because the relative is subsumed in the absolute - not opposed to it - we can't deny existence of the relative either. This (here simplified) position is known as the unity of two truths. From this non-dualistic perspective, my power and the power of Absolute is the same power, my will and the will of Absolute is the same will, and my spontaneity and the spontaneity of Absolute is the same spontaneity. Using it and being used by it refers to the same activity. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." So, like I said in this answer, "Could we go as far as to say that Buddhist path culminates in the first-hand knowledge ... of God?" -Andrei Volkov

Many people have claimed to me that the brain is the mind. I was so perturbed by this that I spent time considering it. My thought process:
If the mind were the brain then the parts of the brain would be the parts of the mind, consequently there should be a part of my brain that has the ability to see, since I can. However no object can have characteristics or abilities which are not inherited from their parts, (a kettle can boil water because the element can heat up) therefore there should be a part or parts of this part of the brain which can see. It is obvious that neither neurons nor flesh has the capacity to see, or else the dead would see things. No amount of massing together of neurons could ever acquire an ability for which no part is capable, therefore if we remove all the neurons and flesh from the brain then what is left should have the capacity for sight, however there is nothing left.
If the mind were in the brain then you should see inside the brain first before seeing outside, and if the mind were outside the brain then you should see your own face, and then how would you form a common awareness with your brain.
If the mind was not connected to the brain, then it couldn't form a common awareness, if it is connected then how could you have thoughts that are completely different from the brain's awareness?

Citta (mind) is not one of the khandhas, therefore what you know as 'mind' is not perception, thought and consciousness. It is like an evolving soul.


text:
Can a Buddhist truthfully say, "You insulted / offended / angered / hurt me?"
I feel that in his Ball Of Honey Discourse, the Buddha advised his followers to reflect within whenever they felt offended: and to identify the processes of their mind that caused perceptions or sensations to arise, which then led to anger.
In the context of this teaching, can a Buddhist ever truthfully say, "By your wrong speech or wrong action, you have insulted / hurt / offended / angered me. You are responsible for this offence, and therefore, it is your responsibility to stop doing this thing that makes me offended, hurt etc.?"
Please reply with references to recent gurus.

you saw my answer on meta, right? http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1751/43

One could "say" anything but that would only be a relative truth. Ultimately one person doesn't cause another person's anger. One causes their own anger.
It is hard to understand ultimate reality unless one reflects within by attempting to experience things that arise in one's experience, moment by moment in the present moment. Remembering to see things moment by moment is basically what is meant by mindfulness.
The reason the Buddha's teaching is so seemingly contradictory is because of these two ways of approaching reality called ultimate and relative(conceptual) reality.  Reality is an other word for truth. Ultimate truth means an individual's own instance of moment by moment atomic experience.
Most people are asleep to the ultimate, experiential and moment by moment approach to reality. When we are not aware of our individual  experience then we let defilements like anger and greed take us over. This is called mental proliferation and is basically the opposite of mindfulness. Mental proliferation is the reason everyone suffers. Moment by moment mindfulness of the things that arise in one's own experience, kills mental proliferation. Mindfulness is the cure for our suffering.

Here's a video, which hints that it's possible to use mindfulness to avoid reacting angrily:
Ask A Monk: Criticism and Insults
It's only 5 minutes long; I don't have a complete transcript but here are some selected extracts/sentences:

No other person can cause "suffering" for you, all they can do is impinge upon your six senses. ... They can make you see etc. but they can't make you get angry ... or make you get attached, only you can do that.

The problem is not the dirty look or the criticism, the problem is your reaction to it.
... we can change that through the meditation. ... that's quite difficult, that takes a lot of training but we are training to get to that level ... and it does work if that's continuous, even in daily life when it's difficult to do so, if you're careful and especially if you're prepared for it. ... If you prepare yourself in advance then when the situation comes up then you find yourself really able to deal with it in a much more profitable way.
(you can use a similar technique to stop anger snowballing if it does arise)
You mentioned losing all energy when you're criticized, don't worry about that, I think even if you're enlightened it would be very tiresome to be around, they say even the Buddha was tired when he was around such people and would often dismiss them. ... if you're going to live your life in a peaceful and happy way you're going to have to surround yourself with peaceful and happy people ... if you can't do that then try to say to yourself the greatest treasure that we have is our solitude.

See also Instructions to Insight meditation - Mahasi Sayadaw

This is a solid and well written answer, based in insight meditational practice. Great insights.

In any dialog you play two roles: the one who speaks and the one who listens. Buddha gave one common advice that applies to both roles, and two specific ones that apply for each of the two roles.
The common advice (to listeners and to speakers) is:

One does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk;

When you are in the listener's position, the advice is:

If ... there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder.

When you are in the speaker's position, the advice is:

Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord.
Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large.

So as they say in Communication Skills 101 courses, you are always responsible for your side.

The question is: 'Can a Buddhist truthfully say, “You insulted / offended / angered / hurt me?”' And the direct answer is? With references to recent gurus or contemporary thought-processes if possible.

@KrishnarajRao, this a rhetorical question, right? Only a perfectly enlightened Buddha is 100% tolerant. Everyone else can get insulted if you say things insulting to them.

Gaining self-control over ones propensity to react to perceived insults is generally expected from people -- Buddhist or otherwise -- a lot before Buddha-like enlightenment. Especially when one doesn't even "say things insulting to them". Saying that "only a perfectly enlightened Buddha is 100% tolerant" is a bit like saying that one should have a doctorate in English to form a proper grammatical sentence.

And no, it is not a rhetorical question.

Please give a direct yes or a no to this question: Can a Buddhist truthfully say, "By your wrong speech or wrong action, you have insulted / hurt / offended / angered me. You are responsible for this offence, and therefore, it is your responsibility to stop doing this thing that makes me offended, hurt etc.?"

"Part of Buddha's teaching strategy was to divide questions into four types, based on how they should be best approached. The first type includes those that deserve a categorical answer: in other words, a straight "yes" or "no," "this" or "that," with no exceptions. The second type includes questions that deserve an analytical answer. The third type includes questions that deserve a counter-question. And the fourth type includes questions that deserve to be put aside as useless — or even harmful — in the quest to put an end to suffering." - this one is a second type of question.

Can a Buddhist truthfully say, “You insulted / offended / angered / hurt me?”
A person can say that.
The Dhammapada warns, however, that saying such a thing is not a cure for anger and aversion:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

On the other hand that doesn't mean that people want to listen to "wrong speech".
I guess a reason why some people ordain (or seek the company of other Buddhists) might be to enjoy the company of a like-minded community. The same Dhammapada (e.g. chapter 23 and chapter 5) says that it's good to have wise friends, but also that "there is no fellowship with the fool".

So, is that a yes or a no to this question: Can a Buddhist truthfully say, "By your wrong speech or wrong action, you have insulted / hurt / offended / angered me. You are responsible for this offence, and therefore, it is your responsibility to stop doing this thing that makes me offended, hurt etc.?"

A Buddhist can (i.e. is able to) say that (whether they can say it "truthfully" is another matter, which depends on your definition of "true Buddhist" and your definition of "Buddhist truth"); but if a Buddhist says that, that is somewhat contrary to the Buddhist advice or ideal (e.g. as given in the Dhammapada which I reference here, also Yuttadhammo's advice as referenced in Uilium's answer).

On the other hand that doesn't mean that Buddhism advises Buddhists to produce wrong speech themselves, nor to spend time listening to it. Does that answer your question? Sometimes (perhaps often) your questions don't have a straight "yes or no" answer: sometimes they're a false dilemma.

Chris, I think a plain reading of the question makes it clear that it is a question about "agency". Still, I will make it clearer in another question. I trust you will not consider it a duplicate and close it.

@KrishnarajRao So re "agency", to such extent as you are able and willing to control your thoughts and your speech, the advice is avoid saying "you hurt me", because that kind of thinking leads to anger and to the continuation of anger (which is contrary to the Buddhist goal). With the word "truthfully" in it, I parse your question as "what is 'truth' (or what is 'true')?" not a very specific question; and/or your question might have been be expecting/asking answers to explain 'anatta' or perhaps 'identity view' (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).

By "truthful", I mean a statement that is not at odds with the Buddhist worldview, and/or the Buddhist intellectual framework. My limited understanding of Buddhism is that all external stimuli, whether pleasant or unpleasant, are illusory. As per my understanding of Buddhist philosophy, a core belief is that thoughts and sensations arise within us because we give them permission or encouragement to arise. And therefore, casting the onus on an externality may not be congruous with Buddhist philosophy, and therefore, "untruthful".

@KrishnarajRao IMO that's partly correct but partly wrong as well. It could be an interesting question or topic, to ask what may "wrong" with or mistaken about these first three sentences; e.g., 1) Instead of "truthful" Buddhism might talk about ariya ("right") and upaya ("skillful") which isn't quite the same. 2) Instead of "all stimuli are illusory", there's "all is a stimulus or sense-object", plus the "three marks of existence".

"What is the contemplative's doctrine? What does he proclaim?"
"The sort of doctrine, friend, where one does not keep quarreling with
anyone in the cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its
contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk; the sort [of
doctrine] where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains
dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut
away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-. Such is my doctrine, such
is what I proclaim."
When this was said, Dandapani the Sakyan — shaking his head, wagging his tongue, raising his eyebrows so that his forehead was wrinkled in three furrows — left, leaning on his stick.

Madupindika sutta

So, is that a yes or a no to this question: Can a Buddhist truthfully say, "By your wrong speech or wrong action, you have insulted / hurt / offended / angered me. You are responsible for this offence, and therefore, it is your responsibility to stop doing this thing that makes me offended, hurt etc.?"

For most Buddhists, in sphere of their ideas: no (but whether they would say that in practice is another topic).
In regard of the teaching of the Buddha, phenomena have causes: see this answer about the cause of pleasure and pain here.
To illustrate that with a nice story:

Su Dongpo Story
Su Dongpo was an avid student of Buddhist teachings. He was quick-witted and humorous; as a Zen Buddhism follower he was very serious and self-disciplined. He often discussed buddhism with his good friend, Zen Master Foyin. The two lived across the river from one another.
Following is an interesting and famous story about him and Zen Master Foyin.
One day, Su Dongpo felt inspired and wrote the following poem:
稽首天中天，
毫光照大千；
八风吹不动，
端坐紫金莲。
I bow my head to the heaven within heaven,
Hairline rays illuminating the universe,
The eight winds cannot move me,
Sitting still upon the purple golden lotus.
The “eight winds (八风)” in the poem referred to praise (称), ridicule (讥), honor (誉), disgrace (毁), gain (得), loss (失), pleasure (乐) and misery (苦) – interpersonal forces of the material world that drive and influence the hearts of men. Su Dongpo was saying that he has attained a higher level of spirituality, where these forces no longer affect him.
Impressed by himself, Su Dongpo sent a servant to hand-carry this poem to Fo Yin. He was sure that his friend would be equally impressed. When Fo Yin read the poem, he immediately saw that it was both a tribute to the Buddha and a declaration of spiritual refinement. Smiling, the Zen Master wrote “fart” on the manuscript and had it returned to Su Dongpo.
Su Dongpo was expecting compliments and a seal of approval. When he saw “fart” written on the manuscript, he was shocked . He burst into anger: “How dare he insult me like this? Why that lousy old monk! He’s got a lot of explaining to do!”
Full of indignation, he rushed out of his house and ordered a boat to ferry him to the other shore as quickly as possible. He wanted to find Fo Yin and demand an apology. However, Fo Yin’s door closed. On the door was a piece of paper, for Su Dongpo. The paper had following two lines:
八风吹不动，
一屁弹过江。
The eight winds cannot move me,
One fart blows me across the river.
This stopped Su Dongpo cold. Fo Yin had anticipated this hot-headed visit. Su Dongpo’s anger suddenly drained away as he understood his friend’s meaning. If he really was a man of spiritual refinement,  completely unaffected by the eight winds, then how could he be so easily provoked?
With a few strokes of the pen and minimal effort, Fo Yin showed that Su Dongpo was in fact not as spiritually advanced as he claimed to be. Ashamed but wiser, Su Dongpo departed quietly.
This event proved to be a turning point in Su Dongpo’s spiritual development. From that point on, he became a man of humility, and not merely someone who boasted of possessing the virtue.

The Lord Buddha said those who accuse another falsely with slanderous speech go to hell. Keeping this in mind, a Buddhist should not be offended.

He goes to hell, the one who asserts what didn't take place, as does the one who, having done, says, 'I didn't.'
They stab with their words   — people unrestrained — as they do, with arrows, a tusker gone into battle. Hearing abusive words spoken, one
should endure them:   a monk with unbothered mind.
Sundarī Sutta

I think it is your responsibility to stay calm. But first listen carefully, because maybe the person is telling you the truth in an aggressive way. So if he/she is telling the truth, accept it. If not, ignore and stay calm. There is no reason to feel angry.


text:
Can Buddhism be "modernized" by discarding the supernatural mythological content?
In this answer, I was told,

Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least some Zen sects and some Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (upaya), i.e. useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to aspects of "reality".

Assuming this to be true, can these schools of thought discard the supernatural aspects (which we may refer to as "myths of Buddhism"), as such metaphors may be less useful or not useful in the modern age? In other words, may we "modernize" Buddhism as an upaya?
If the supernatural elements or "myths" (such as Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than integral to The Buddha's teachings, then is it correct to say that "modernizing" the teachings could also be an Upaya?
Has any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) mentioned such a possibility of "modernizing Buddhism" in his writings or his speeches? Kindly give references.

This seems like a duplicate of Shouldn't Buddhist discussion use modern metaphors (instead of metaphors from the ancient past)?

@ChrisW - Except, now we are not talking about just metaphors, we are talking about the entire cosmology -- 31 lokas etc.

The premise (i.e. "context" in the 1st paragraph) of this question is that "the cosmology" is a metaphor.

@ChrisW - Exactly. If this premise is incorrect, then I guess people will say so.

@KrishnarajRao I think you should take on the task of modernizing Buddhism, since you are so passionate about this. No sarcasm intended. First you'd have to learn everything of course, and then re-structure in modern terms... should not take more than 25-30 years... If you are serious about this, you can finish it before you die.

@AndreiVolkov - Thank you. It would be a great honour if I were enabled to do so. No sarcasm intended!

Here's a quote from Science at the Crossroads by Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama,

Because of this methodological standpoint, I have often remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology as found in ancient Buddhist texts.

I don't know whether this quote (therefore this answer) addresses the "metaphor" and "upaya" and "supernatural" parts of your question, but I think it's partially relevant given your mention of cosmology.
This speech was composed for "the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience".

I think that the dalai lama has probably contributed the most in terms of modernising buddhism by concessions like this. Scientists will find it difficult to criticise anyone who immediately abandons the unprovable or seemingly illogical.

The Dalai Lama also said in his book "The Universe in a Single Atom" that if Science were to conclusively disprove Buddhism (or any of its beliefs) then we should abandon Buddhism (or the belief in question).