text:
Has lord Buddha ever told something like this?

Once lord Buddha pointed at a glistening star and asked a monk, "Do you believe that star still exists where we can see it?"
The monk answered yes.
Then lord Buddha said, "You are wrong. That star was destroyed few years ago. What we can see is the light it has emitted."

I saw people sharing something like this in social networks saying lord Buddha knew many things about the universe thousands of years ago. But they dont reference to any Sutta or Atuwa or anything where I can find this. I want to know if this is true ? Has lord Buddha ever said something like this ? And which Sutta is it ?
Thanks :)

This is the origin story of Sattasuriyuggamana sutta. During Buddha's time there was a monk who was indulged in astrology and auspicious times. Once he asked Buddha whether the stars or planets have any effect on humans as it's told in astrology. Buddha didn't answer that straight away but chose the night to answer this question. During the night he pointed at the sky and asked the question from that monk.

Do you believe that star still exists where we can see it
  ...

As a result of this discussion Sattasuriyuggamana sutta was taught by Budddha to show that these planets and stars have no effect on humans and these are just natural phenomena.
I wasn't able to locate this origin story in English in the web, although it's available in Sinhalese here.

Sattasåriyasuttaü- Seven suns.

007.02. I heard thus. At one time The Blessed One was living in Ambapali's mango orchard. The Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus from
  there:
ßBhikkhus, determinations are impermanent not stable, there is nothing
  to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should turn away from,
  get disentangled from and be releasd from all determinations.
Bhikkhus, the highest peak of the Himalayas, is eighty four thousand
  yojanas high from sea level. (a yojana is seven miles) Eighty four
  thousand yojanas in breadth. It is eighty four thousand yojanas deep
  down in the sea. Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many
  hundreds of thousands of years there comes a time when it does not
  rain. When it does not rain, all seed and vegetation born plants such
  as medicinal grass, plants trees and forests dry up and wither and are
  no more. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent not stable,
  there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should
  turn away from, get disentangled from and be releasd from all
  determinations.
Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a second sun rises. When a second sun
  rises whatever streams, rivulets dry up and wither and are no more.
  Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent not stable, there is
  nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should turn
  away from, get disentangled from and be releasd from all
  determinations.
Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a third sun rises. When a third sun
  rises, the great rivers such as the Ganges, yamuna, Aciravatie,
  Sarabhu and Mahi dry up and wither. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are
  impermanent not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is
  suitable that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be
  releasd from all determinations.
Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a fourth sun rises. When a fourth sun
  rises, the great ponds mintained by the great rivers such as Anotatta,
  Sihapapata, Rathakara, Kannamunda, Kunala, Chadanta and Mandakini dry
  up and wither, they become no more. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are
  impermanent not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is
  suitable that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be
  releasd from all determinations.
Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a fifth sun rises. When a fifth sun
  rises, the water in the great ocean recedes one hundred yojanas, two
  hundred yojanas three hundred yojanas, five hundred yojanas, six
  hundred yojanas and seven hundred yojanas. The water recedes to the
  height of seven, six, five, four, three, two palms and even one palm.
  The water recedes to the height of seven, six, five, four, three, two
  men, or even one man. It recedes to half the height of a man. It
  recedes to the knee depth of a man, to the ankle depth of a man. When
  the fifth sun rises there would not be water in the ocean to wet the
  fingers up to the knots. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent
  not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable
  that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be releasd
  from all determinations.
Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a sixth sun rises. When a sixth sun
  rises, the great earth and the peak of the Himalayas smokes, and gets
  filled with smoke. Like when something made by a potter is cooked. It
  smokes and gets filled up with smoke. In the same manner when a sixth
  sun rises, the great earth and the peak of the Himalayas smokes, and
  gets filled with smoke. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent
  not stable, there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable
  that you should turn away from, get disentangled from and be releasd
  from all determinations.
Bhikkhus, after the lapse of many years, many hundreds of thousands of
  years there comes a time when a seventh sun rises. When a seventh sun
  rises, the great earth and the peak of the Himalayas blazes and catch
  fire. When the great earth and the peak of the Himalayas blaze and
  catch fire, flames tossed by the winds reach upto the world of Brahma.
  When the peak of the Himalaya mountain burns, peaks as high as a
  hundred yojanas, two hundred yojanas, three hundred yojanas, four
  hundred yojanas and five hundred yojanas crumble. Bhikkhus, when the
  earth and the Himalaya peak is burning ash or cream of ash is not
  evident. Bhikkhus, thus determinations are impermanent not stable,
  there is nothing to comfort in them, so it is suitable that you should
  turn away from, get disentangled from and be releasd from all
  determinations. Bhikkhus, when the earth and the Himalaya peak is
  burning, whatever divine sayings and beliefs be, they also get burnt
  and are no more, would attained right view remain?
Bhikkhus, in the past, there was a Teacher called Sunetta, one free of
  greed who helped to cross the ford. The Teacher Sunetta had
  innumerable hundreds of disciples .Bhikkhus, this Teacher taught, to
  be born in the world of Brahma. Those who completely knew the
  dispensation of Sunetta, after death, were born in a good state in the
  world of Brahma. Some of those who did not know the complete
  dispensation of Sunetta, after death, were born with those attached to
  the creation of others. Some attached to creation, soome with the
  happy ones, some with the Titan gods, some with the gods of the
  thirty-three and with the guardian gods. Others were born with high
  clans of warriors, Brahmins and householders.
Then it occured to the Teacher Sunetta. `It is not suitable for me to
  be born in the same plane as my disciples, after death, what if I
  develop loving kindness further.'
Then the Teacher Sunetta developed loving kindness for seven years.
  Having developed loving kindness for seven years, he did not come to
  this world for seven forward and backward world cycles. During the
  forward world cycles he was born a radiant god and during the backward
  world cycles was born in an empty Brahma paradise. There he was Brahma
  the supreme Lord, not conquered with sure insight wielding authority
There, he was Brahma, Brahma the great, the unconquered lord and
  master with sure insight, holding authority for seven timesòhirty six
  times he was Sakka the kng of gods. Innumerable hundreds of times he
  was the righteous universal monarch, winning the four directions and
  establishing states. Bhikkhus, he was endowed with these seven jewels,
  such as the jewel of the wheel, the elephant, the horse, the jewel,
  the woman, the householder and the advisor. Bhikkhus, he had over a
  thousand courageous sons with valiant figures, for crushing foreign
  armies. They lived ruling over the earth righteously, without weapons
  as far as the limit of the ocean. Bhikkhus, that Teacher Sunetta with
  long life and long standing was not released from birth, decay, death,
  grief, lament, unpleasantness and displeasure, I say not released from
  unpleasantness.
What is the reason? For not realizing and experiencing four
  things.What four?
Not realizing and experiencing the virtues, concentration, wisdom and
  release of the noble ones. Now he has realized and experienced the
  virtues, concentration, wisdom and release of the noble ones. The
  craving to be is uprooted, the leader of being is destroyed. Now he
  has no more birth. The Blessed One further said:
Famous Gotama, has realized noble virtues, concentration, wisdom and
  release
And declaring the Teaching to end unpleasantness is mindfully
  extinguished. (Source: Sister Uppalavanna from Galla)

By "origin story" I suppose you mean, the story of how that sutta came to be, and not the text of the sutta itself.

Yeah, that's how the sutta came to be.

Would you like to reference/cite the Sinhalese origin story (especially given that the OP is from Sri Lanka)? Do you have an opinion about whether this version of the origin story is (for example) earlier than the 20th century?

Added the link. I'm not able to say whether the origin story came to exist before or after 20th century. There's no description on that to be found.

Thank you. :) May I know which Nikaya contains the Sattasuriyuggamana sutta ?

@Astro Aṅguttara Nikāya-> Sattaka Nipāta-> mahā vagga Here's the  link

Buddhism does teach several things which are like that or close to that:

There's a doctrine of impermanence, that nothing (even stars) will last forever.
There's a doctrine of sense-impressions and consciousness, that our 'perceptions' (e.g. our vision) aren't the same as the 'forms' (e.g. the light of a star).
Buddhism even teaches that it's important to distinguish between 'form' and 'consciousness'.

However I don't know any story phrased exactly like the one you quoted; nor any suttas in which the Buddha teaches people about 'the speed of light' inasmuch as that is understood by modern physics.


text:
Monks precepts - Not to teach dhamma to women and not to recite dhamma in pali with laymen?
Two of the Pacittiyas (monks precepts according to Vinaya) implies that 1-Bhikkhus should not teach more than 6 words of Dhamma to women and also 2-Should not recite texts of dhamma in pali with laymen.
Is this correct? I may have read that in a non reliable source of per haps I may have misinterpreted it, it could also be an issue with the translation... not sure.
Anyway, I woukd like to understand it better. thanks!

I think your first doubt was taken out of context from the following rule (excerpt from The Buddhist Monastic Code, page 370):

Should any bhikkhu teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to
  a woman, unless a knowledgeable man is present, it is to be confessed.
“Then Ven. Udāyin, dressing early in the
  morning and taking his bowl and (outer) robe, went to visit a certain
  family. At that time the lady of the house was sitting in the main
  entrance, while the daughter-in-law was sitting in the door to the
  inner chamber. So Ven. Udāyin went to the lady of the house… and
  whispered Dhamma into her ear. The daughter-in-law thought, ‘Is this
  monk my mother-in-law’s lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ Then,
  having whispered Dhamma into the ear of the lady of the house, Ven.
  Udāyin went to the daughter-inlaw… and whispered Dhamma into her ear.
  The lady of the house thought, ‘Is this monk my daughter-in-law’s
  lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ After whispering Dhamma into
  the daughter-in-law’s ear, Ven. Udāyin left. So the lady of the house
  said to the daughter-in-law, ‘Hey. What did that monk say to you?’
“‘He taught me Dhamma, ma’am. And what did he say to you?’
“‘He taught me Dhamma, too.’
“So they criticized and complained and spread it
  about, ‘How can Ven. Udāyin whisper Dhamma into women’s ears?
  Shouldn’t the Dhamma be taught openly and out loud?’”
The two factors for the full offense here are:
1) Object: a female human being who knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken, and who has not asked one a question about the Dhamma.
2) Effort: One teaches her more than six sentences of Dhamma without a knowledgeable man present—i.e., a male human being who also knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken.
...
Summary: Teaching more than six sentences of Dhamma to a woman,
  except in response to a question, is a pācittiya offense unless a knowledgeable
  man is present.

Your second doubt, seems to be referring to this rule (excerpt from The Buddhist Monastic Code, page 356):

Should any bhikkhu have an unordained person recite Dhamma line by line (with him), it is to be confessed.
This is an offense with two factors:
1) Effort: One gets a student to recite Dhamma line-by-line with oneself (which, as we shall see below, means to train the student to be a skilled reciter of a Pali Dhamma
  text).
2) Object: The student is neither a bhikkhu nor a bhikkhunī.
...
Summary: To train a novice or lay person to recite passages of Dhamma by
  rote is a pācittiya offense.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are people younger than 20 forbidden to ordain?
According to a precept it is forbidden to integrate a person under 20 years of age into the Sangha. Is that correct? So are the young monks, not monks, but something different?

Maybe some useful information under this related question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/140/can-someone-explain-about-children-monks

Are they old enough to scare birds?

They are called samaneras.

According to The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople

Becoming a Novice
The first part[16] of the ordination[17] procedure for bhikkhus is known as the Going Forth into Homelessness (pabbajjaa). If it finishes with just that — without going on to the Questioning of the candidate and the Acceptance of him by all the gathered bhikkhus into the Bhikkhu Sa"ngha — the candidate is known as a saama.nera or novice. This is usually the case when the candidate is less than the twenty years of age necessary to become a bhikkhu. A very young boy is not allowed to become a novice either, but the minimum age will vary according to place.[18]

Footnote:

[18] "One under 15 years of age, unless he can scare crows (i.e., is mature) should not be given the pabbajaa for becoming a saama.nera (Vin.I,79). After receiving their parent's consent (Vin.I,83), they were to shave their head and beard, put on the ochre robe and, paying respects to the bhikkhu, receive the Three Refuges and the Ten Training Precepts." (HS ch.19)

See the Wikipedia article Śrāmaṇera for a description of Buddhist novices.

lolled @ "unless he can scare crows"... so the exact limit is 15 correct otherwise one is a sramanera correct? I think it should be increased to 24. One isn't mentally fully mature until at least that age..

@Ahmed I think he needs to be 20, and have spent at least a year as a novice, to be ordained. If he's less than 20 (older than 15) he can be a novice. If he's not even 15 he can still be a novice, provided he can at least scare crows from a field (e.g. about age 7).

Housholder Konrad, interested,

Age requirements. An applicant for the Going-forth must be at least fifteen years old or, if not yet fifteen, "capable of chasing crows away." According to the Commentary, this means that, while holding a clod of earth in one hand, he can chase crows away from food placed in front of him while he is eating it with his other hand.
An applicant for full Acceptance must be at least twenty years old, counting from the time his consciousness first arose at conception in his mother's womb. As this is difficult — if not impossible — to date with any accuracy, the usual practice in calculating a person's age is to add six months to the number of years since his birth, to allow for his having been born prematurely. As the Commentary notes, a baby born after seven months in the womb may survive, but one born after only six months won't. Pc 65 states that if an applicant less than twenty years old receives full Acceptance, he does not count as a bhikkhu; the Commentary says that he remains a novice. Any bhikkhu who acts as his preceptor, knowing that he is too young to be accepted, incurs a pācittiya; any other bhikkhus in the assembly performing the ordination who also know the applicant's age incur a dukkaṭa.

There are certain other things to be regarded proper, of both, one how gives ordination and one who desires, for one not fit for full ordination because of age.
Much on this is found in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya, worthy to know the cases to understand the spirits and limits in regard of going forth under the Tripple Gems better.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

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:
Era in which the past Buddhas appeared
Does anyone know in which era each of the first 27 Buddhas appeared?  I know the 28th Buddha's lifetime is generally accepted to be circa 563 BC to 483 BC.

They weren't historical and the time between them is measured in kalpas, usually defined as a stupendous amount of time. At the moment, the Buddhas that came before Shakyamuni are not historical personages with any artifacts or the like to back them up. This may still have  a suitable answer though from the same texts that mention the six or 27 other Buddhas

Gautama Buddha, the traditional Buddha is thought to have lived towards the end of the 5th century BC, about 480-400 BC. This date is the scholarly consensus. Traditional groups accept other dates, and there are a number of these.
The previous Buddhas are a myth. By which I mean that no one thinks that they actually lived. The previous Buddhas were probably an invention along the lines of the Jain myth of the Jinas. The Buddha's mentioned in the Pāḷi Canon lived in the universes that preceded this one - an incalculably long time ago. This is based on the idea that the universe goes through cycles of creation, evolution, devolution and destruction over incredibly long periods of time (much longer than scientists give for the present age of our universe).


text:
A Buddhist Point of View of Virtual Reality
Buddhism teaches that what is real is experience; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking.
From this perspective, is virtual reality, (video games, Oculus Rift, and such) objectively less "real" than reality? One certainly sees, hears, feels and thinks in virtual reality.
If material objects are not real; are digital images of them any less real?
I suspect there is an objective answer to this from a Buddhist point of view and I'm interested in understanding it.

When you say 'virtual reality', do you mean a digital representation of physical reality (e.g. a video camera), or do you mean a synthetic simulation of reality (e.g. a video game)?

I suspect the notion of 'real' here might approach The Unanswered Questions, or speculative view. Somewhat like in tkp's answer.

@qweilun Doesn't 'real' (from the Latin res meaning 'thing') correspond to the "'form', 'matter' or 'rupa'" of the 5 skandhas?

I don't know, that's beyond me :-)

Thank you for the answers. @ChrisW, I'm referring to synthetic simulation of reality. So while conventionally, one might see a great distinction between experience in the physical world (conventionally real) and experience while immersed in a simulated digital environment (conventionally  not real), from a Buddhist PoV is there an objective difference? Good answers below. Thanks!

"Buddhism teaches that what is real is experience; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking." - where is it taught as such?

Buddhism does not teach that what is real is experience. This is exactly what it does not teach.

If we are able to taste a "fake" flavor in a way as "rich" as we deem a real taste, we could ask what is the difference? As far as our sensorial system is concerned, it's definitely taste. So, it is reasonable to say it is real in the experiential sense.
What distinguishes a "real" taste and a "simulated taste"? From the perspective outlined above, one answer is how "rich" the experience is (to our senses). Thus, an initial approach to identify virtuality (or "artificiality") is to identify how
"simplified" an experience is compared to an understanding of its "real" counterpart (where "real" here just means "richer" in regard to stimuli).
If an experience is "rich enough" to our senses, a priori, we are unable to distinguish "virtual" from "real" unless, perhaps, through sophisticated maneuvers (eg. clever reasoning, clever observations -- science). In fact, our inclination is to say "it felt so real", which puts the idea of "reality" itself into question [again].
But of course, "virtual worlds" of today do not offer such "richness". Wearing glasses and playing a game is real in the sense that we are living an experience of playing, and we are stimulated by the the instruments of the game (display, sounds, tactile facilities). However they still fall short both in its ability to "fool" ourselves and to be fully capable of supporting a life such as ours within its environment.
Even if we put aside ontological questions, as until now, there are important points to consider (whether we are in a "real universe" or fooled in a "virtual universe"), like the hard problems of identifying life and intelligence --  and how "hurting" a character whose behavior is "artificial"  different, karmically, from hurting an actual living being?
Voluntary imagination and dreams, on the other hand, may be different enough to introduce some subtleties.
In terms of [early] buddhist doctrine, I understand that whether the experience is, in essence, virtual or real is insignificant. The point is that we find ourselves in an environment ( a realm of existence, virtual or real) where there is contact through sense bases (irrespective of the "substantial reality" of external objects) and volition (or, to answer fully, paṭiccasamuppāda).
Finally, I seem to recall a sutta where the Buddha might have said something like "there is nothing beyond the sense bases". But I'm very unsure about this, even the actual wording and meaning. Then, there is the question of how supramundane experiences are sensed, and Nibbana itself -- if that makes sense --, which I'm not comfortable to elaborate.

Gosh, that's a heavy question. All I'll do is point you to some potentially useful material. I suggest you take a look at comparisons between the philosophy of Wittgenstein, and that of Nagarjuna. (Professional analytic philosophers may be knee-jerking like crazy here, but I'll persist.) The central idea that connects them -- if anything does -- is the idea that what you are asking sits outside the bounds of what language can express. It -- the notion of more or less "real"-ness -- is an example of what Wittgenstein referred to in stating "Whereof one cannot speak, thereon one must remain silent."
Or, less exotically, I really do think that the movie "The Matrix" has something to offer here. When Neo asks Morpheus, inside the battle simulation, "So this isn't real?", Morpheus replies "What is real?" Put another way, why are you distinguishing between "virtual" reality, and "real" reality? Ultimately we have no idea what is "out there"; the only thing we do know for sure is that we are perceiving it.
I don't know if that is of any use whatsoever :-)

Buddhism teaches that what is real is experience; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking.

Forgive me for disagreeing but I though it might teach slightly the opposite: it teaches that that-which-is-experienced are your own senses, and your senses depend on your impermanent body, therefore your experience of 'form' is 'conditioned', therefore your experience is 'empty', therefore you can manifest detachment towards your experience and not suffer from your experiences ...

is virtual reality, (video games, oculus, and such) objectively less "real" than reality?

Digitizing a material object doesn't make it less real: for example, imagine you're a surgeon doing real-life surgery on a living being; and, by contrast, imagine the same except that you're doing real-time remote surgery (via the internet, remote control, etc.).
I think we're taught to feel compassion for sentient beings: not for images. I might not like to burn a photograph (because I feel an attachment to that kind of thing) but I don't think it's morally wrong to burn (non-sentient) photographic paper, however burning a real live (sentient) person would be wrong.
Conversely being nice to real ('sentient') people is IMO better than winning in a (simulated) video game.

If material objects are not real; are digital images of them any less real?

I don't think it's true to say that objects (forms) not 'real'.
And when the forms in question are the forms of sentient beings, then those forms are like 'self': i.e. it's not true to say that 'self' isn't real. The 'self' might be difficult to define (or not worth defining), but it's not true to say that 'it doesn't exist' and in the same way it's not true to say that objects don't exist.
That they don't exist 'permanently' is true.
And that whether you perceive them depends on certain (temporary) conditions is also true.

+1 for the first half, -1 for the second :)

-1 because 'form' (not to mention to self) is not only impermanent but, like a wagon, a mere aggregate of parts?

yes, and not only aggregate of physical parts, but an aggregate of causes and conditions, both objective and subjective

I don't believe that grading sensual experience by how corporale they are is the way one could tackle the question. One can easily have a more sensually rich imaginary intercourse then the one she has in reality. All western succubus/incubus mythology confirms that. In china there is a medical text that describes the cure for a girl that is haunted (frequently visited) by a ghost in her dreams. One of the symptoms of the condition is that she finds the ghost a better partner compared to what she has in waking.
The key here for me at least is the uprooting of Saṅkhāras. One grades them by how persistent they are during practice. Simply put how often similar ideas pop up on the surface. Therefore it seems that Virtual reality does not propose a special problem, it is again a question of how one is attached (pun unintended) to it.
One can go scholastically on the question where I believe Ahmed gave a pretty good answer -  all phenomena are the same level of not-Real.
One can of course approach it phenomenologically. Here is a dirty question:
 How many of us have played video games or stared in front of a monitor and go about to do a sitting after that?
For me at least the images and impressions appear as equally as anything else during the day and they are as persistent as I have persistently dwelled on them...

Ultimately, there is experience - and just that is real. When you say - "physical world (conventionally real) & simulated digital environment (conventionally not real)" - you're still on the linguistic level (conventional reality) - neither are ultimate reality.
Now, as far as one might see a great distinction between the virtual and the physical goes - that would really just depend on the perceptions on the basis of which one forms one's thoughts and views.
For example , there is the case where a person cultivates the perception of a "3D-physical-world" (so to speak) - and assigns "3D objects" with certain characteristics and keeps in mind certain laws by which these "3D objects" interact - now to one cultivating such thoughts and views - an experience of the "virtual simulated environment" will appear to be a "different world"(so to speak).
And why is that ? Simply because the fundamental units of the "world" on which the mind of such a person is operating are these "3D objects" and their characteristics and laws of interaction (as he perceives them to be).
Now, in the "virtual world" - these "3D objects" and their characteristics and laws of interaction are radically different - so much so - that a mind operating and even clinging to a certain conceptual paradigm as mentioned above - would be almost certain to give rise to the perception of a "radically different new world".
But, that's as far as it can go. Now, there is also the case - where a monk, firmly established in the seeing things as they really are (yatha-bhuta-ñana-dassana) ,with an unwavering perception (thira sañña) - who is just going to experience mentality-materiality(nāma-rūpa) processes arising and passing away - since in ultimate reality - there is no "3D-physical-world". The Buddha also said that just this - the five senses - is what is meant by "world".
I quote Lokasuttaṃ SN 35.82 (though it probably isn't directly relevant)

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said
  to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' it is said. In what
  respect does the word 'world' apply?
"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now
  what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate.
  Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye
  disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on
  contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...
"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...
"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...
"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...
"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the
  intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect
  disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on
  contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

The classical Buddhist answer:
From a Real point of view, the two are exactly the same. This is the kind of point of view one would take when doing Vipassana. Basically all phenomena are the same level of not-Real, all experiences including super-real dreams, insanely emotional visions or a simple computer game or even a vague dream are all the same.
On the other hand, from the relative "real" perspective, the answers are multitudinous and not Buddhist.
This relative perspective is not dealt with in Buddhism because it is not relevant to the Pursuit of the Great Thing and one can only derive relative benefit.
Nonetheless, if you were to force myself, a Buddhist, to give an personal-experience answer, I would say that relativistically speaking certain realities are stronger than Oculus while other realities are less real than virtual reality. For instance, sexual intercourse is far more sensual and "real" than VR on many, many levels whereas a daydream might be equal or less "real" than a session of VR gaming.
A final realtivisitic "Buddhist" (remember that the Buddha avoided a lot of these kind of Useless questions) argument could be this: all VR is mere imitation and can never reach the reality that living reality has: the etheric, physical, emotional, social connections that are interdependent and transform and perfume each other within the great Alaya consciousness on nearly infinite levels that is far far beyond computer programming or any computer process.

The whole Buddhist philosophy is describing things, being on the base of "mind". Hence, it doesn't matter whether is it real or unreal, if you believe sort of perspective as real, that is enough. Because, though you think real world is "real", according to the Buddhist philosophy, nothing is real. All are momentarily illusions that we think of as real.

I'm hoping you know of the Microsoft HoloLens. Imagine that type of technology was implanted on a contact lense, and then glued to your eye at birth. What you see and know about this world from birth to today could be an illusion. Tibet Buddhist' would argue life itself is an illusion. But I would argue whoever comes to that conclusion claiming they themself are the illusion in the illusion, is correct, yet not correct. Because once realizing that you are real in a different perspective. You become real the world of illusion, and a new world opens up.
The revolution won't be televised. Break your tv. And start a revolution.

Well I just started reading about the whole real reality or simulated reality, or what ever else this what we are taking about could be interpreted as, but here's my theory. So if we are living a virtual type realism then just like wanting to know if aliens are real and trying to contact them with transmissions and sending messages by means of sending time capsules into space, maybe we shouldn't bother spending wasted time on seeing whether it's true or not. Why it's simple if we did by some what ever and was like ah haha we are not reality and you creator we know who you are, do you think the creator-s would be like hey what's up galaxy wow you guys are amazing you figured it out, now we gonna just let things go on so you can now with the rest of the universe live life happy knowing your data.
Uh don't think so I'm sure there would be some humanity laws for these creators because if not that sure be cruel don't you think. So they would shut us down or reboot us and return us to are last saved spot when we knew nothing of this theory or not reboot us at all. Just as aliens yeah maybe we get lucky meet some advanced extraterrestrial and they show us the lite or they just as clueless,  or worst some evil reptilian type with only us as food source or slaves in mind.  So let's just work on what we have try to prepare for outside this planets dangers, and all countries enough is enough and let's make 1 world order that is not communists and all should be as 1 nation of mixed creations of beauty and let's all integrate and evolve the ultimate species of human man kind and stop the racism and stupidity and just get along and try to work as one world one nation under the liberties of all race and creed.


text:
Limitations of meditation/mindfulness without Vinaya
Some teachers say that the meditation practice without the Vinaya is very limited on its achievments. That is equivalent of saying that lay meditators will have very limited results, even if he/she keeps the 5 precepts.
Can anyone explain what is the real difference? What gets limited by not following Vinaya?
PS: The teacher was Ajahn Chah, he was talking about retreat, even in retreat the lay person wont get so far because of Vinaya, there is only so much a lay men can develop in meditation (even in a retreat).

Is this like asking, "What's the effect or benefit of becoming a monk?"

No, I'm focusing here on the benefits of meditation. That would be a wider and more complex question.

The teachers probably just stated the obvious: lay life is busy life and lay people have to take care of so many affairs such that even if they stick to the 5 Precepts, they're still at a big disadvantage int terms of resources (time, energy, efforts) dedicated toward meditation practice as compared to full-time monks and nuns. Doesn't mean it's impossible. It'll just be more difficult..sort of like amateur boxing versus professional boxing..

The teacher was Ajahn Chah, he was talking about retreat, even in retreat the lay person wont get so far because of Vinaya, there is only so much a lay men can develope in meditation (even in a retreat). I added it to the question

Maybe "following Vinaya" and "being a monk" are the same thing, aren't they? http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/meditation/ for example says, "The monks, we believe, are the Olympic athletes of certain kinds of mental training," Davidson says. "These are individuals who have spent years in practice. To recruit individuals who have undergone more than 10,000 hours of training of their mind is not an easy task and there aren't that many of these individuals on the planet."

yes they mean the same thing, but that was not the question. That would be a bigger question (monk vs layman). Here I'm talking about achievments in meditation only. Can they be equal?

The basis of Vinaya is morality and taming the senses
Lack or morality (Sila / Vinaya) or hedonistic practices is based on unwholesome thoughts
Unwholesome thoughts result in unpleasantness (due to -ve fabrications and karmic formations) which is detrimental to meditation (Piti and Passadhi being an aid to meditation)
This also lead to verbal fabrication as most unwholesome thoughts lead to through proliferation which makes the mind harder to focus and also creating more fabrication.

Morality (Sila / Vinaya) is the basis of developing Samaddhi which helps developing Panna. So strong morality is needed.

Some teachers say that the meditation practice without the Vinaya is very limited on its achievments.
Yes ofcourse.Sila is the foundation for Meditation.Monastics live in an environment that is conducive to meditation practice.Monastics also have rules that when followed significantly purifies their conduct compared to a lay person.
Can anyone explain what is the real difference?
Monastics follow 227/311 Precepts...I Need to realize Nibbanna in this Lifetime.
Lay People follow 5/8/10 Precepts...I need to realise Nibbanna in this lifetime or one day but in the mean time i don't want to fall in the lower realms.
The difference would be the sense of urgency.
What gets limited by not following Vinaya?
When we meditate we are purifying our minds..which is subtle.
When we train our sila we are purifying our actions..which is gross/course.
You can not expect to purify something that is subtle if you have a hard enough time purifying something that is course.
That is equivalent of saying that lay meditators will have very limited results, even if he/she keeps the 5 precepts.PS: The teacher was Ajahn Chah, he was talking about retreat, even in retreat the lay person wont get so far because of Vinaya, there is only so much a lay men can develope in meditation (even in a retreat).
That is true if you only see things in the context of this lifetime.But if you consider the infinite numbers of past lives we've had,whose to say in the past we we weren't monastics and the monastics weren't lay people .Lay people who realized Nibbanna didn't just achieve that out of the blue.They have cultivated and accumulated paramis in the past whether it be Sila or Renunciation and all they had to do now as a layperson is listen to a sentence or two of a Dharma Talk and thats all it takes.A gentle nudge.They were done as far as samsara is concerned.
So don't think that your practice is limited simply because your not following 311 precepts.You might have followed it maybe ten times in the past.Now maybe you just need an extra hour of vippasanna.Whose to say..


text:
Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?
Surely The Buddha appeared quite emaciated when he realized full enlightenment. Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

FYI some (perhaps rare) representations of an emaciated Buddha do exist if you look for them.

Just a quick comment that the Buddha only attained enlightenment after He had abandoned the practice of extreme self-mortification. He discovered the Middle Way which is a path of neither self-indulgence nor self-mortification. After realizing that self-mortification didn't work, He accepted milk and rice from the village girl Sujata to regain the strength needed to continue His practice toward enlightenment.

"Surely The Buddha appeared quite emaciated when he realized full enlightenment." I am not sure why he would appear this way. Like santa100 said, it was not self-mortification that lead him to the Way.

@ChristopherLee He may have found enlightenment not long after the Middle Way, i.e. while he was still thin. If not self-mortification, the art/depiction might show resolve, self-control (and impermanence of bodily form).

I might be a bit young and mistake,but I believe the fat laughing buddha statues are used to incorage people into the practice I myself am fat and people believe I live a great life so the statue is more a prable then a mistake

The fat Buddha is really Ho Tai  see https://www.thebuddhagarden.com/who-is-laughing-buddha.html

As @ChrisW linked above, there are many representations of the Buddha in his emaciated state, such as  and  and .
From the book Buddhist Art and Architecture by Robert E. Fisher, a brief mention of this style of portraying the Buddha is found on page 47 when discussing contrast between Roman and Indian styles of portraying the Buddha in art in the Gandhara region where Alexander the Great had just ended his campaign.

The Roman love of portraiture and dramatic realism appeared in the form of images of the emaciated Buddha, a favorite subject of the region but one seldom found in Indian art.

So while the Romans liked this style, it certainly wasn't as popular then (or now) as depictions of the Buddha while not in an emaciated state. As mentioned, the Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene.

Because it is not the middle way.
Representing the Buddha as emaciated is likely to lead others to fast like the Buddha, thereby repeating his follies.
The representation of the Buddha is not primarily a representation of the human or of history alone, but of the realized wisdom of a Buddha.

Because people often wish to deny that starvation and illness exist. Even Buddhists find these facts challenging

The fat, bald, laughing"buddha" is a chinese monk named Ho Tai (or Mi Lo Fa) .

Beautiful answer by Robin111.
But I believe the question is why isn't Buddha represented as emaciated?
Specifically why do people have the fat Laughing Buddha statue everywhere especially at the front of business buildings?
Mainly this is because it represents wealth, commerce, and overspending, something businesses like. Most when asked say "it's luck." These people feel it attracts abundance.
Other reasons this trend has remained so is because:

the Buddha did not attain Awakening until he "fattened up" a little, taking the milk curds from the woman, and taking care of his physical form
the obesity/fat belly represents happiness and physical health [ironic because I feel much happier on successful fasts than I do overeating!]. Remember that happiness (a result of the 2nd training) is a foundation for Awakening (the 3rd training).
obesity is representative of wealth in earlier times (actually all times, except this past century) which in reference to Buddha perhaps represents spiritual wealth.

The 'laughing Buddha' is presumably Budai.

Interesting interpretation but rather unusual. Traditionally the Budai form of Maitreya is associated with Chinese (as well as Vietnamese) representation of the Maitreya. Other traditions as well as historical Chinese iconography generally depict him in a regal stately princely manner. The important qualities as you pointed out is his joyful nature in his obese appearance. It is also symbolizes not judging someone by their appearance because everyone is a Future Buddha.


text:
Looking for negative reference to women in the Avatamsaka Sutra
I came across this rather gender progressive comment from Nichiren

If we examine the Flower Garland Sutra, the first sutra to be preached
  after the Buddha attained enlightenment, we find that it is a Mahayana
  work preached by the Buddha in his aspect as the Thus Come One of the
  reward body. Thus, to the voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, and
  others, it was like daytime to an owl or nighttime to a hawk; though
  they listened to it, it was as though they did so with deaf ears or
  blind eyes. This being the case, though people hoped that the sutra
  would enable them to pay back the four debts of gratitude, because it
  speaks disparagingly of women,3 it was hardly possible for them to
  repay the debt of gratitude owed to their mothers with the sutra.

which is footnoted with

3) For example, the Daishonin cites the passage “Women are messengers of
  hell who can destroy the seeds of Buddhahood. They may look like
  bodhisattvas, but at heart they are like yaksha demons” with regard to
  the Flower Garland Sutra. This passage is cited in A Collection of
  Treasures as a quotation from the Flower Garland Sutra.

http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-2/Content/264
I can't for the life of me find this or anything like it in my Cleary edition of the Avatamsaka. (I believe it is there, I've read all sorts of misogynistic passages in sutras, I just can't find it)

I downloaded the Chinese translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and did a few searches for patterns with different combinations of words that are likely to appear there (e.g. 女 "woman", 地獄 "hell", 種 "seed", 夜叉 "Yaksha"). I found quite a few phrases, but none of them looked like the cited passage. My knowledge of classical Chinese is very rudimentary, so I may be mistaken. However, the search inside the Cleary translation on the Amazon website doesn't show any such passage either. So if it is there at all, I think it's more likely that the quote is a summary/paraphrase of a larger chunk of the sutra, and not a direct translation.
EDIT: I found a classical Chinese/classical Japanese phrase that is the source of your quote:

女人地獄使。能断仏種子。外面似菩薩。内心如夜叉。

It can be found in this text at 7-094. Unfortunately, there is no information about the author nor the date when it was written. In any case, it is definitely not modern Japanese, so I don't think it was written recently. It seems to be a Nichiren commentary to the Lotus Sutra.
EDIT 2: The above quote is preceded by "華厳経云", which means "Avataṃsaka Sūtra says". That explains why the passage is commonly (and incorrectly, as we may conclude) attributed to this sutra.
EDIT 3: I found information about the origin of the quote, which, in light of the facts presented above, we can regard as conclusive:

This statement is not found in the extant Chinese versions of the Flower Garland Sutra. However, A Collection of Treasures written by Taira no Yasuyori during the Jisho era (1177–1181) cites it as a quotation from the Flower Garland Sutra.

cool, I re-googled it and hit on 2nd theory of the actual source of the quote.

Nice! And based on your answer I managed to find what looks like the original Classical Chinese/Classical Japanese quote.

I think I might have found the actual source.
In an anthology of Japanese Literature, I find almost the exact same text, in what looks like a modern fictionalized discussion between two monks, one who says the quote is from Vasubandhu's "The Treatise on Consciousness-Only" I haven't confirmed that, because I can't find the full text of it.

If I understand it correctly, "The Treatise on Consciousness-Only" was not written by Vasubandhu, but it's Xuanzang's commentary to his works. Again, I grepped through the Chinese original (http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%88%90%E5%94%AF%E8%AD%98%E8%AB%96), but didn't find anything that looks like the quote.

The concluding chapter of the Avatamsaka is the Gandavyuha, widely regarded as a sutra in it's own right. The Gandavyuha honours women more than any other sutra that I know of. It tells how a pilgrim named Sudhana discovers a succession of teachers, including 22 who are female. Each of the 22 female teachers gives Sudhana a vitally important insight into the true nature of reality, including the  Indra's Net principle of interconnection and inter-reflection.


text:
As a Buddhist with a Muslim family, community, and background... how do you integrate/cope?
Coming from an Islamic background and having a community/Sangha that is loyal to the religion of Islam, how do you harmoniously integrate yourself and your Buddhist study and practice with the community you were born in including within a mosque?

I'm 26 and I considered myself becoming Buddhist when I was 14. I come from a very loyal Islamic family and I totally think that Islam is a beneficial religion... containing within it the simplest and easiest spiritual practices of all Abrahamic religions because it has a meditation+yoga-like prayer system, calling all practitioners to Practice with single-mindedness towards a singular God every day five times a day (namaj).
I made a lot of mistakes over the years in expressing these ideas with simultaneous conviction and non-defensiveness that is my power now.
Islam is a very strict religion on the the level of the 1st two trainings:

morality: unconditionally forbids all intoxication and has many other moral codes
concentration: routine concentration practice of prayer, using mantra method combined with yoga

Thus, even though I am Buddhist I don't run away from Islam. I fully embrace it and espouse the half-muslims to actually practice it because it has many health benefits.
I go to mosque when I can and when I am required to with my family and community and I integrate Buddhist science of spiritual practice to practice with single-minded mindfulness and not the ignorant desire-filled prayer most people probably do.
Buddhism is a religion that is fully integrated within my Islamic community and if I speak about Buddhism I speak about it without ever mentioning the word Buddhism or Buddha. I merely reference the practices such as yoga and meditation and pranayama which are nondenominational and conducive to the actual reason for namaj (improve concentration and oneness with Allah--a concentration object).
Thus, when I speak about Islamic practices, I find myself always integrating the nondenominational, spiritual principles of Buddhism within the structure of Islam.
Islam is a great religion and can be fully subsumed into the spiritual science of Buddhism. Practice the Buddhist virtue of modesty and let no one know of your attainments and your vigorous concentration practice.
Mentally discard silly Islamic/religious that you know by Buddhadharma are only created to help people stay doubt-free and cultivating practice concept and enjoy spiritual practice with your community!
Use the phrases and phrases you learned from within Islam. Display complete devotion to Islam and spiritual science in general. Islam isn't that complicated at all... it is easy to blend in and be spiritual, continue to use the Buddhadharma but always appear Muslim by practicing Right Speech within your community.

There is an e-book about the similarities between the two:
Common Ground Between Islam and Buddhism
by Reza Shah-Kazemi
with an essay by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
introduced by
H. H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama
H. R. H. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad
Professor Mohammad Hashim Kamali

Islam comes from a Buddhists back ground. The Buddha taught that, Eliminating the ignorance which is driven by Pancakkhandha is the road to enlightenment for all sentient beings.(Pancakkanda, the five Aggregates)
Buddhism is still alive and well in Sufism.

"...Islam comes from a Buddhists back ground..." - Is that your own opinion? If not, could you then add a reference to that statement? Thank you.

The (more important) part which answers the OP's question is the last sentence.

Well certainly Allah is mentioned by The Buddha as Maha Brahma.

"He is Allah , the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner; to Him belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise." (Quran 59:24)

Similarly the Great (Maha) Brahma is described:

"But there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the
  Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the
  Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have
  Been and Shall Be." (DN 11)

Usually whenever people speak of a Creator that existing in the beginning of the universe they are referring to the same Maha Brahma that The Buddha spoke of.
This means Judaism, Christianity, and Islam likely came from the Brahma worlds or beings influenced by the Brahma worlds.
The angel Gabriel is likely an attendant of Brahma.
Maha Brahma in Buddhism is mostly good but sometimes influenced by the Evil One (Satan, Mara), is extremely powerful and knowledgeable but not all-knowing and all-powerful, but He usually praises The Buddha.
Certain virtues and morals that lead towards the extremely long-lasting Brahma worlds are also in-line with what helps one achieve arahantship, but The Buddha goes further and beyond the Brahma worlds towards arahantship here and now.
The Brahma worlds last for an extremely long time but eventually disappear towards the end of the universe-system, so arahantship here and now or going to the Pure Abodes is preferred.
Of course an arahant in the world is extremely rare, even during The Buddha's time there were few arahants.
Going to the Pure Abodes after death is also extremely rare.
Going to the Brahma worlds after death is also extremely rare.
It's much more common for people to go to hell, the animal womb, the realm of ghosts, or a lower heavenly world after death than the Brahma worlds.
Sariputta explains in MN 97 how to get to the Brahma worlds, by encompassing your awareness with good will, compassion, appreciation, and equanimity.
Similar teachings and virtues to what Muhammad says:

“Do you love your Creator? Love your fellow-beings first”
“They will enter the Garden of Bliss who have a true, pure, and
merciful heart”
"Adhere to truth, for truth leads to good deeds and good deeds leads
him who does them to Paradise"
“Ye will not enter Paradise until ye have faith, and ye will not have
faith until ye love one another”

This means the majority of people will most likely not go to the Brahma worlds after death (including most Muslims).
The majority of rules and virtues in Islam seem mostly inline with achieving arahantship minus the violence and sex allowed so it shouldn't be that difficult to integrate.
The Buddha forbids violence for monks under all circumstances whereas Islam allows violence in some circumstances.
The Buddha forbids sex for monks whereas Islam allows it under certain circumstances.
But the majority of rules in Islam are inline with achieving arahantship likely because they lead towards the Brahma worlds, and most of the things that lead towards the Brahma worlds are also inline with what helps one achieve arahantship.
But remember that arahantship directly comes from extinguishing mental fermentations (asavas) not from merely doing good deeds alone (which makes achieving arahantship easier but doesn't directly cause arahantship).

If Buddhism is regarded as 'psychology' rather than as 'religion', there will be no competition/conflict between the two.
Of course, if this attitude is adopted, generally the 'belief' aspects of cultural Buddhism (such as Buddha statues, reincarnation, etc) must ideally be dropped.
If the ancient Greeks did not introduce alien Buddha statues into Buddhism & if the ambitious Buddhist rulers & clergy did not taint their scriptures with Brahmanistic ideas (for the purpose of religious conversion), Buddhism may have lasted longer in central Asia due to not being falsely regarded as a form of idolatry.

How would you know you are not following a false imaginary modern form of Buddhism?
Buddhism is a great religion and it doesn't deserved labeled 'tainted'.

This comment displays not-knowing ("avicca") of the fundamentals of Buddhism where liberating truth is verified by each insightful practitioner: "'sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi". MN 117 explains there are two kinds of Right View: "noble" ("lokuttara") & "tainted ("asava")". Cultural Buddhism is tainted since any kind of notion of reincarnated "self-view" is obviously tainted.

@Yinxu I deleted a series of comments which degenerated into criticizing each other (using words like "You" and "I"). Generally, if one wants to critique, question, or improve an answer, one can do that using just one (first) comment, rather than several. After your first such comment I recommend you let the answer's author have the last word, and don't post further comments unless it's 'a discussion' and not 'an argument' (and the subject of the discussion should continue to be answer, not the author). If you still don't like the answer you can downvote and/or post a better answer yourself.

Well, there's no way I could answer this specific question since I am not a Muslim myself.
That said: Bhikku Thanissaro have stated strongly that there is no indication that rebirth is simply a metaphor in the scripture, but is a fundamental aspect of the path: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/truth_of_rebirth.html

@Dhammadhatu "If the ancient Greeks did not introduce alien Buddha statues into Buddhism".... Are you just writing whatever or you have a proof for this?

@Epic See for example "Pre-iconic phase" and "Iconic phase" in Buddhist art, and related topics such as Aniconism in Buddhism and Greco-Buddhist art.


text:
Karma responsibility regarding beheadings
I simply can't accept that those poor souls who've been decapitated by ISIS are to blame in any way apart from perhaps the fact that they happened to be in the wrong place.
Please can someone help me understand this from a Buddhist point of view.

Blame is not something a Buddhist tries to do.

@ChristopherLee -- Is it fun being a pedantic fool?

Think also about past lifes.

One would need to attain one of those supernatural powers that enables one to see other people's previous lives to know for sure. Anyway, the fact is that for every man whose head is chopped off, there has to be another man who carries out the gruesome act. So, ever wonder what'll be waiting for the executioner in the future life times? According to the law of kamma, he'll never be able to get away with what he did. He'll have to pay with his own head or something similar sooner or later..

Some things happen because of karma: if you intend to do something then (because of karma) that intention will result in (i.e. it will cause) effects.
I think that does not imply that everything which happens, happens because of karma.
Buddhism teaches something called 'dependent origination' or 'dependent arising'. Karma is listed as one of the causes, but it is not the cause of everything.

The principle of dependent origination underpins the concept of karma, which is an application of this principle to individual actions and their fruition. The Dalai Lama explains the relation between dependent origination and karma as follows:[18]

Karma is one particular instance of the natural causal laws that operate throughout the universe where, according to Buddhism, things and events come into being purely as a result of the combination of causes and conditions.
    Karma, then, is an instance of the general law of causality. What makes karma unique is that it involves intentional action, and therefore an agent. The natural causal processes operating in the world cannot be termed karmic where there is no agent involved. In order for a causal process to be a karmic one, it must involve an individual whose intention would lead to a particular action. It is this specific type of causal mechanism which is known as karma.

In Buddhism Karma is just one aspect. Being in the wrong place in the wrong time or showing up at certain events can cause certain results. Also note a person born to be get fine foods but born in Somalia and some one born US will have differences.


text:
gradual versus sudden enlightenment
Is it true that most "enlightened" Buddhists attained this realization gradually? Or are there cases of sudden enlightenment? I ask because either this process is way more gradual than I can even detect, or else I'm not yet at the sudden point. Or perhaps I won't ever get to that point at all.
I'm pretty new to all this - been meditating daily for about a year now, at first once a day for 20 minutes, then 30 minutes, and lately twice a day for 20 minutes each...I feel so clueless. And my mind continue to race all over the place when I'm sitting. :-)

I have had to train for over a year for many things. Karate, Tea Ceremony, software development. Most of the Zen practioniers I practice with have been training for 5-10 years. I was told that for the first year do nothing but count your breath.

Thanks for your response. It is helpful to know that this is not an overnight thing (like most people I want to have instant results, and it can be difficult doing when the road is so long...). Your comment about it being like learning karate or SW development are very helpful, since both of those are endeavors I've toiled with in the past.

There is no set, predictable pattern.
Yes, some attain gradually. Don't worry about gradualism too much though, just figure out how to Practice better and better, keep improving your  Dharma knowledge. Your recognition that your mind is racing is the 1st step. (Most ordinary people are at step 0. They don't even know that their mind is hell.)
Yes, there are many cases of sudden enlightenment, and such people always had great amount of merit and past life cultivation and already had tremendous concentration power (2nd Training).
Read a Buddhist book. I suggest reading the articles here. Read Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha for the best hardcore introduction to Buddhism ever. It's free.
It's not as simple as force yourself to sit for 20 minutes twice a day and get enlightened...there is a lot to the whole Buddhist work and it is plain out stupid for someone to expect realization and get it. Realization is a type of non-attainment. Read the Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra to start to understand this concept.
Also, unless you can focus your mind (the 2nd training) so well that you are absolutely clear and blissful (this happiness is happier than a constant orgasm, jhana) the 3rd training (which involves "realization") is far far off.
Learn to concentrate first (2nd training).
You also have to learn how to meditate correctly or else you can meditate for 24/7 for 100 years and nothing will happen - no stilling of the mind, nothing, just racy mind getting worse and worse until you give up.
"Don't have hope for Enlightenment but Practice all your life." --Milarepa

I wonder why the downvote. This answer is correct IMO.

No people were right, amended my answer to be more complete. Upvote away peopel :)

Thanks for your response, Ahmed. I will look for the free book you mentioned. FWIW I have read a couple of Zen books and have been listening to a bunch of audiobooks on mindfulness and meditation. As far as the actual doing goes, the hardest thing for me is to maintain that focus. Possibly it is due in part because I tend to meditate early in the morning or right before bed, when I'm sleepy. I have noticed that when I do yoga first in the morning, and then meditate, I'm more "successful," at least inasmuch as I can maintain focus more easily.

@JeffWright Of course! That is a key thing many faithful Buddhists forget. They must remember that the Buddha mastered all sorts of Hindu practices including probably pranayama (I know it helps ME a lot, check out Bodhisattva Lifestyle this weekend for a video tutorial I will make on the most powerful pranayama practice in existence).
When you do yoga and pranayama successfully, you can complete the 1st and 2nd trainings in Budddhism (morality and concentration) almost effortlessly!

It all depends upon the personality & interpretation of teachings. Huineng got sudden enlightenment mere on listening to Diamond Sutra.
From here, in the words of the sixth patriarch Huineng.

"So far as the Dharma is concerned, there can be only one School. (If a distinction exists) it exists in the fact that the founder of one school is a northern man, while the other is a Southerner. While there is only one Dharma, some disciples realize it more quickly than others. The reason why the names 'Sudden' and 'Gradual' are given is that some disciples are superior to others in mental dispositions. So far as the Dharma is concerned, the distinction between 'Sudden' and 'Gradual' does not exist."

He further elaborated that interpretations also lead to sudden or gradual enlightenment,

"The teaching of your master," replied the Patriarch, "is for the followers of the Mahayana School, while mine is for those of the Supreme School. The fact that some realize the Dharma more quickly and deeply than others accounts for the difference in the interpretation. You may listen, and see if my instruction is the same as his. In expounding the Law, I do not deviate from the authority of the Essence of Mind (i.e., I speak what I realize intuitively). To speak otherwise would indicate that the expositor's Essence of Mind is under obscuration and that he can touch the phenomenal side of the Law only. The true teaching of Sila, Dhyana, and Prajna should be based on the principle that the function of all things derives from the Essence of Mind. Listen to my stanza:--
  To free the mind from all impurity is the Sila of the Essence of Mind.
  To free the mind from all disturbance is the Dhyana of the Essence of Mind.   That which neither increases nor decreases is the Vajra
  (Diamond, used as a symbol for the Essence of Mind);  'Coming' and
  'going' are different phases of Samadhi."

As a side note, Daosheng can also be a good reference to look into the matter.


text:
How can I overcome the causes of anger?
When I get angry with someone, I can usually calm this feeling after some time through meditation practices.
But I'm wondering how can I overcome the causes of this 'anger' in a way that I don't get angry anymore with something?

In my experience, persistent practice of metta infuses me with loving kindness and reduces my anger. I think meta changes your nature so you don't get angry anymore. It cleanses you from any kind of negative thought. IMHO, metta should be the answer. The best way to practice metta is by chanting a Pali mantra, sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā.

Excellent that you are interested in this! You are motivated to attain Arhatship! Permanent uprooting of the poisons is achievement of Theravedin Enlightenment/Arhatship.
I will summarize the pathway in a recursive way that you can not only use for any of the three poisons (anger, greed, delusion)... but you will find will be permanently valuable for the entire path!

1st training: restrain your action by following the Eightfold path. Force yourself to follow Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood no matter what!
2nd training: use anything you would use for the 2nd training, concentration. This can be a contemplation that fixates your attention away from the anger (breathing, brahmavihara, etc.)
3rd training: vipassana. Be clearly nakedly aware of the emotion as a sensation. It will dissolve.

The 3rd training is hard to do without proper advancement in 2nd training.
The 2nd training is hard to do without proper advancement in the 1st training.
The 1st training you must do or else you will sink into a lower form of existence in the next life.
Rmemember that the above method may seem like a lot in words but it's main success is in the lifestyle path you choose (animal-killers or prostitutes are not Right Livelihood and will experience more poisons than others always) and being mindful in the moment (#2 and #3), transforming the emotion. This can be a matter of a split second.
I have not referenced any lengthy suttas in this text but these are all true things said by the Buddha. I would recommend seeing the chapter on the Three Trainings within the free book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha for more info and read the entire book.
Super big secrets.

how can I overcome the causes of this 'anger' in a way that I don't get angry anymore with something?
You overcome anger by being AWARE of anger.
1.When anger arises note "anger".Remember it's not your anger".It's just anger.By doing this you create detachment from it.Creating distance or space.That is usually enough to give you some gap to talk yourself out of it.
But if it persists and you find yourself struggling.Then..
2.Focus on the anger.
NOTE: Do not focus on angry thoughts,or memories or plans.When i say focus on the anger i mean focus on the physical/sensations of anger.The heat in your body,the sweat on your face,tension around your jaw,the saliva being produced in your mouth,the heat behind your ears.Be aware of your overall physical state when your angry.
Now tell me where is that anger? Show me where it is.Try to find it?So that i can mark that part of your body with a marker.We'll know who the culprit is!Is it that feeling in the back of you neck?Oh it's moved up to your head.Why is it moving around? Now it's gone down your spine.
Why is it you can feel anger so strongly but you can never seem to pinpoint it in one spot.It just moving all the time.Anger looks so big, mean and overwhelming when your not paying attention to it but once you take a closer look it seems to be reduce in size,nothing more than tiny particles swirling around different spots of your body and even then if you pay more attention you'll reduce it to nothing.It's dissolved.
We think anger is solid and permanent but it's not.When anger lurks in the deep waters of our subconscious we have a distorted view of it.It becomes an impulse that we must let out or it becomes unhealthy,it gathers momentum demanding action to be taken.But the anger is not doing this.We are.By our inability to see it clearly(ignorance).when we bring it to the surface of consciousness we see it for what it is.Just sensations arising and falling going it's own way.So the next time anger arises stay with it in this way.But if you can not then by all means practice restraint.

Like all emotions, anger is a healthy, honest, innate insight into your sense of wellbeing.
You have the right, as a human being, to feel and be angry. A therapist once told me that 'anger is your dignity', or a call from your soul to be have your sense of self valued.
That you are interested in resolving your anger in a way that is compassionate to someone is
endearing. But, denying your right to be angry is limiting your right to feel, live, and love freely.
Your anger, as unreasonable as it might seem, is coming from an honest place and is likely prompting you to change an aspect of your relationship with someone. However, acting aggressively or denying someone's feelings is not 'right action'.
To transform your anger, you may have to change the way you communicate with the 'someone' you mentioned by being more honest and being willing to be vulnerable about painful, troubling feelings. You may also have to change your relationship to your anger and the lens you view anger.
Anger is a sign of a weakened relationship, with someone else or within yourself. If you meditate on the causes of your anger, meditate to strengthen your compassion for the wound causing your anger and conditions you can create, within yourself and within the relationship with someone else. And do so to liberate your all of your strength and your relationship.

Granted I'm not that knowledgeable, but it seems to me that the only part of this which touches on a Buddhist approach is the reference to meditation and and even that doesn't seem very Buddhist to me. This seems like a conventional Western psychotherapy viewpoint.

My answer isn't traditionally Buddhist because in my experience the Buddhist teachings on anger haven't been productive. In a forum intended to communicate Buddhist teachings, it would have been best to describe sutras or philosophy innate to Buddhism.  Thanks for the comment.

Anger result due to ignorance. Ignorance of when we make sense input our perception and views makes us react to our sense input. We see, hear or feel something which we do not like or something turns out to not what we expect, we react with anger.
Hence when you get some sense input jest look at it as feeling. Bee mindful of the feeling it cause and just leave it at that without any reaction knowing that the feeling also will pass away.
If the above does not work you could try doing some loving kindness meditation.


text:
Buddhism and the so called "hard" problem of consciousness
Hello Buddhists namaste!
Would it be wrong of me to suppose the anatta means at least partly, the following two theses?

No explanation of a conscious thought is complete: mind is not absolutely transparent to itself.
Consciousness is only explicable by way of an explanation of some particular conscious thought.

IMHO that would make the "hard" problem, disappear :)

I don't understand why 'anatta' partly means (1.); and, I don't understand what connection you see between (2.) and the Hard Problem. Therefore IMO your question is unclear. Also, is it true that you're not simply asking for a Buddhist definition of anatta and of consciousness, unless the answer includes an understanding of your argument?

Dunno why people downvoted you. Maybe because it's kind of an ugly question and you put "hard". Which was in quotes anyway and referring to your article.

You're a new user, so I'm not downvoting. But this seems like a question about philosophy of mind, not about Buddhism, your mention of "anatta" notwithstanding. Could you modify it to bring it more into the heart of Buddhist questioning? Failing that, maybe you should ask it here. I would recommend, however, tightening it up a bit first. Those guys will be well aware of Chalmers's "hard problem" and will eat you alive if you go in without a bit of preparation. And, FWIW, no I don't think your two theses solve it.

Also, specifically on the meaning of anatta, I got a very good answer from @Yuttadhammo on that very question here

A good question. But hampered, as are many such discussions by mismatched terminology. There is no Buddhist concept that quite matches the idea of "consciousness". We don't really notice this because the early translators used quite imprecise terminology and we're stuck with it. If there is one thing that vijñāna is not, it is "consciousness".
Another factor that one must take into account is that what ancient Buddhists meant by "mind" and what modern philosophers, like David "The Hard problem Chalmers mean by it are two different things. Buddhists for example make no categorical distinction between thought and emotion. There is no word for emotion in either Pāḷi or Sanskrit. See Emotions in Buddhism. Emotion is a kind of citta, as it thought, or perception. And yet the distinction between thoughts and emotions is critical to modern philosophy.
Nor is there any notion of the mind as a container for experience. The metaphor of the "theatre of consciousness" is entirely absent from Buddhist thought. See The 'Mind as Container' Metaphor.
The early Buddhists never claimed to fully explain conscious thought. The project would not have interested them. They were trying to understand dukkha - unenlightened experience. They were interested in the intoxication (pamāda) of ordinary people with sense experience and how to sober up. However as I understand it they would probably have agreed that because experience arises in dependence on sense object, sense faculty and sense cognition, and that most of us proceed without pause to proliferation, that a complete explanation of a conscious thought would be difficult. But I don't think anattā has anything to do with this.
On the other hand experience of samādhi changes the ball game. One can get a kind of insight into the arising of cittas that are as yet not incorporated into the modern theories of mind.

Consciousness is only explicable by way of an explanation of some particular conscious thought.

The trouble is that what you are calling "consciousness" is almost certainly ruled out in Buddhist thought by anattā. From the early Buddhist point of view there is no such thing as "consciousness" in the sense that, say, David Chalmers uses it. There's just conscious experience. Chalmers own solution that "consciousness" must be different from matter is also ruled out - if something is not accessible to the senses then we can have no knowledge of it. And this is the most important implication of anattā.
It does leave open the question of the Hard Problem though, because there is still something that it is like to have an experience. It's just that solving this problem would not tell us anything interesting about why we suffer. We suffer because we have an aberrant relationship to pleasure/pain.
So it seems to me that you're barking up the wrong philosophical tree with this question. However, it's worth asking because it helps to clarify the distinctions between Buddhism and philosophy.

Anatta, in the Buddhist context, means you have not control over the aggregates or anything else to be considered as self, me or mine. Also there is no core which is unchanging or everlasting which you can consider Atman. It does not relate to the concepts given in your question.
Viññāṇa is also Anatta as this has the above properties too. Mind content is also has the above properties hence Anatta.

i'm sorry i don't understand the answer are you replying to the question ?? !

Yes, Suminda states: "It does not relate to the concepts given in your question". He's politely suggesting that you seem to have your own unique idea of how Buddhist terms are used, and he's also explaining what the conventional usage of the terminology is.

Does it really mean you have "no control"?
For example we are all influencing ourselves to write in such a manner and we must put effort into doing so.
I think anatta just means aggregates. Simple as that.

If you call some one say my grand father. Can you ensure he does not die at some point? Can you say he become young. This is no control. You are calling him my grand father with a notion of permanence in the reference. There is nothing worthy of calling self, me or mine. Anatta mainly means no core and no control.

@Ahmed I think that Suminda's saying, "we have no control over the aggregates" is a paraphrase of e.g. Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. Also, maybe using the first-person pronoun we in "we are influencing" might imply an identity-view? But yes, "no control" might be a nihilist extreme (the opposite of "total control"), whereas "some control" or maybe "apparent control" (or 'temporary' control etc.) might be more accurate -- maybe that's a subject for a different or new question/topic.

Partly what I meant. But we can have other entity view regarding external entities who we relate to. We cannot even control their aggregates. Also any formation which we call mine. Say my car.

Partial control yeah youre right. And isnt it paradoxical how as one comes closer to Buddhahood and realizes the lack of control and self.. One gains more control and more actual self substance.. A discussion for another question :)

Also Chris I don't like the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta very cogent in explaining it because in some dhyana heavens we can control the various skandhas including form by will (Buddhist cosmology says this, for example the Form heavens)...
I think to your credit Suminda though we can't really control anything... it might be a domino like effect and interaction among our thoughts, will, and physicality that is causing us to type out our thoughts exactly as so.
The True Self is an observer just sitting in the background...
But then again that is a (extreme) "view" and wrong as well..

Even in this world we have some control. Say we can change form by changing our posture. But this is not a absolute. Can you stay in one posture say for a year? Even in the form realms can you maintain the same form without ding to infinity? This is lack of control. More than this if you look at for arising and passing away in any realm can you wish that the for arise like so or not pass away. You have no control over the Kalapas which constitute form.

You have no control is only clearly apparent at the level of arising and passing.

I think that Anatta means that there are only correlated processes instead of the (thinking of perceived) subject (self, Atman). So Anatta does not imply that understanding of consciousness or mind is incomplete. Conversely, Anatta suggests not to introduce additional entities into this doctrines. Yes, our mind is not perfectly transparent to itself, but this is due to defilements, not due to Anatta.  And, of course, Anatta does not mean that materialistic theories does not explain the conscious and thinking soul or mind. Concerning Hard Problem I think that all its verifications also are mental or perception processes, so they cannot bring us additional evidence.

Yes, no explanation of thought is complete without dependency on some other phenomena. Everything is interdependent, nothing is itself without anything else. (But not necessarily "transparent".)
No! Consciousness is the 5th aggregate/skandha. It is at an even more root level than thought itself! (which is the 3rd aggregate/skandha) You can perceive consciousness (without thought) through the usage of prajna wisdom. There is also a jhana that is pure consciousness, no thought (one of the four formless skandhas).


text:
A Question About our Aatma
Where is our Aatma or Soul when we sleep? What exactly happens to it?
I tried finding answers, but could not get any answer from within!
Help

Perhaps you mean to ask, where is our consciousness when we are in deep sleep?

In Buddhism there is not concept of Atman. But has the concept of Anatta, means you have not control over the aggregates or anything else to be considered as self, me or mine. Also there is no core which is unchanging or everlasting which you can consider Atman. It does not relate to the concepts given in your question.

I know that there is no concept of "soul" in Buddhism in general but in Tibetan Buddhism there are certain physical localizations of consciousness... which is the closest thing to an answer to the OP's idea of "soul" existent in Buddhism.
I read about this localization in the past in a Tibetan dream book its either in the head or heart which is why in Tibetan dream yoga one puts one hands over the heart as one sleeps..


text:
Did Shakayamuni Buddha talk about the Trikaya?
Did Shakayamuni Buddha talk about the Trikaya? If so where?
I am looking for suttas attributed to Shakyamuni in the times of Theravada.

It wasn't explicit in the Theravada but the foundation was already there. The concept got fully developed by the time of the Mahayana. Further info. is available from the wiki page here

Ahh.. Apparently in the Aganna Sutta "Because the titles of the Tathagatha are: The Body of Dhamma, The Body of Brahma, the Manifestation of Dhamma, and the Manifestation of Brahma."

No but the concept of dharmakaya in Theravada is known as dhammakaya.
The ideas of sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya (rupakaya) on the other hand were not developed fully until Mahayana entered the picture.
According to the same Wikipedia entry, it is possible the idea of some form of rupa-kaya was taking shape though as this passage (section 9) from the Aggañña Sutta may indicate:

"I am a true son of Blessed Lord, born of his mouth, born of Dhamma,
  created by Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma." Why is that? Because, Vasettha,
  this designates the Tathagata: "The Body of Dhamma", that is, "The
  Body of Brahma", or "Become Dhamma", that is, "Become Brahma"."

This may be a misinterpretation of sutta taken out of context because it does not seem to be repeated through other Theravadin literatures.


text:
Developing mindfulness doing complex activities like learning or programming?
It is easy enough to see the power of developing mindfulness through walking meditation, eating meditation, and any repeated task including cooking.
How does one develop mindfulness capacities when doing new things involving struggle like studying, reading, problem solving or programming without hindering one's progress in such a task?

With a simple action we layman do vipassana like this:

feeling hunger
decided to eat
getting up (can be broken up into putting hands on desk, lifting butt, turning body, raising body, letting go of desk, etc.)
walking towards fridge

...and so forth
A layman computer-user could do the same thing like this:

thinking about project
realizing idea
moving (break apart the moving process step by step as in walking)
bring computer from stand by (break this apart)
typing password (this is not broken down into piece because it is automatic for most)
deciding what to do (vicara)
remembering goal (vitarka)
opening program (can be broken down to pressing windows, typing name, clicking program)
waiting for load
feeling: impatience
thought: wanting to check 9gag.com
thought: don't check, try to be focused
body awareness
noticing program loaded
deciding to continue project action

All of the above was less than a minute! *Making anything a meditation becomes a energy-creating, focused journey!*
One can definitely build up one's mindfulness power through daily activity while actually increasing the activity's focus level too! If there is some interference it is outweighed by the level of calmness, clarity, and focus brought to the project itself. It's a win-win.
So a few points to making it not impede efficiency itself:

notice your level of anxiety (and other hindrances) and use mindfulness to bring yourself back to present moment especially by breaking down automatic actions (break down the noticing to building blocks e.g. typing W-O-R-D, moving mouse left quickly, left-up slow, up slow)
notice when switching from one thing to another but don't get in the way of that switching by interpreting this meditation itself... just observe yourself accomplishing such things effortlessly! practice self-awareness meditation for this (also called cessation-contemplation). This can decrease your overall panic-level while working on projects and also help you stay off sites like 9gag and other distractions.
One should use a similar method as when one does mindfulness while eating and walking when it is noticed. Forcing oneself to notice everything is a type of anxiety and can be noted as well, vipassana style.

Turn everything off that does not need to be on.
Stay in the here and now. No past and no future.
Your breath can be your guide as you do ONE task at a time.
Focus on your breath as you do your activity and only think
of the feeling of now. No past and no future. If you wonder off
always bring it back to your breath. Make time for breaks when
you become tired. Maybe open the window and drink some green tea.
Then get back to your study and do the same thing as before.
Be well.

This should be "the ten commandments", brother!


text:
What are some entertaining/fictional movies, books, etc. about Buddhadharma or Buddha himself?
What are entertaining/fictional movies, cartoons or books about Buddhadharma or Buddha himself?

Why are “shopping list” questions bad?

Haha point taken. maybe though its not that bad a shopping list question I think since not many are made..

I don't think it is that bad a shopping question. The answer @ChrisW linked to gives two key aspects of the shopping question in that it asks others: "please make a subjective decision for me and explain it" or "please list all my possibilities with their strengths and weaknesses". I don't think Ahmed was asking for a decision and explanation. Nor do I think he was asking for or expecting an exhaustive list. The question is absolutely subject to some opinion and subjectivity, but other than that I think it was an interesting question and I'm finding the answers useful.

Just a thought, but in terms of ensuring that our SE site has some of the best answers available, is there any merit in gradually combining all these lists into a single "definitive" (although it could never really be that) answer? Usually we want multiple answers, but in this case, where there's 90% duplication but just enough new stuff in each answer to be useful, I don't think multiplicity necessarily buys much for the visitor looking to get a comprehensive overall view. What do others think? Is it worth creating some kind of single "union" of existing answers?

I love the comics "Dharma the Cat" , however, the early stories I loved very much, but once the author had changed his concept (I think around 2009 but this might be completely wrong - I just more-or-less forgot that whole thing) for me the comic-style became inappropriate for that initially sophisticated and fine humour (so I don't know how it developed up to today)

@tkp Editing/merging answers is what the 'Community Wiki' feature is for. Enabling CW on a topic is something only a moderator can do. See also this meta-question.

Chris, I'm embarrassed to admit that despite having been an SE user for a while now, and despite having heard the term "Community Wiki" several times, I've no idea what it is. More precisely, since I know what a Wiki is, where is the CW?

Its a feauture that is set when question is made to let there be communal answers. Apparently only a moderator can alter the setting. We need Andrei or someone

@tkp When you create an answer, or edit an answer of your own, there's a 'community wiki' checkbox near the bottom right of your answer, which you can check/enable (furthermore CW for an answer is enabled automatically e.g. when the answer is edited more than 10 times). In earlier years there used to be a similar checkbox below each question (to signal that the whole topic should be CW); but, that checkbox is now only available/visible to moderators (perhaps because users were abusing or misusing the feature). IOW, as Ahmed said, only a moderator could check/enable CW status for this topic.

I reccomend the Matrix movies, these movies are not about Lord Buddha But you will see why when you see Them @Ahmed

Some of these may be too tenuous a link but ymmv:
Movies (some are also books)

Kundun
Little Buddha
Seven Years in Tibet
The Dhamma Brothers
Buddha Wild: Monk in a Hut
The Devotion of Matthieu Ricard
Cloud Atlas (well, it's supposed to be; I never got it -- I hear the book is better)
When the Iron Bird Flies
Journey to the West
Groundhog Day (see, tenuous!)
The Matrix (ditto)

Books

Breakfast with Buddha
Not Quite Nirvana
The Accidental Buddhist
The Big Bang, the Bddha, and the Baby Book
There is No God and He is Always With You (the author, Brad Warner, has a few others)

There's a ton of other stuff here, and even more pops up by Googling "buddhist movies".

@ChrisW, thanks for that edit. I did intentionally leave some other editor's addition of "Fight Club" untouched, but it's only because I've never seen it so I had nothing with which to object. That said, from what little I do know it has something to do with Brad Pitt punching people in the head, so I'm not surprised you ditched it :-)

Hmm. That said: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol11no2/ReedFightClub.htm

That said, The Wizard of Oz as a Buddhist Parable.

Yeah it could go all downhill pretty fast from here :-). e.g. http://fullcontactenlightenment.com/2011/12/a-charlie-brown-christmas-buddhist-connection/  Maybe we could have a competition for "Movie/Book/Thing/etc With The Most Tenuous Link To Buddhism Ever". It's actually quite hard, because if it has people in it, happy or sad, you can always figure out some kind of link. So far my best attempt is "The old bit of wool lying on the carpet at my feet as I type this" And the Buddhism link? Well it's wool, which is like thread, and lots of Buddhist writings are in suttas, which are threads ...

lol nice play on words there tkp...
like you said before it would be cool to have a community post that people can edit and put very well-done buddhist medias (matrix doesn't count).. maybe your current answer but i don't think its allowed to convert to community wiki at this point

Some movies with Buddhist concepts:

Cloud Atlas.
Little Buddha.
Kundun
The Dharma Brothers (Documentary)
The Buddha (Documentary)
Spring,Summer,Fall,Winter..and Spring.
Why has Bodhi-Dharma Left for the East.
Wheel of Time
Doin Time Doing Vippassanna (Documentary)
Angulimala
OK Baytong
Amongst WHite Clouds (Documentary)
Amrapali
My Reincarnation (Documentary)
The Holy Man (Comedy)
WHen the Iron Bird Flies (Documentary)
Milarepa
Nang Nak (Horror)It's a thai story about a hungry ghost whose still attached to her husband.

doing vippassana and milarepa sound like interesting titles!

Agreed.Doing Time Doing Vipassanna is about a rehabilitation program of teaching Vippassanna Meditation to a group of prisoners in India,which is one of the harshest prisons.It's inspired prisons in other other countries to adopt this program. Here's the full movie www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkxSyv5R1sg

Some more of such referees can be found in: Depictions of Gautama Buddha in film

Osamu Tezuka's Buddha is really fun manga and fictional account of Buddha's life.
Also check out Ikkyu... awesome manga about Zen and sudden realization! Gave me chills when I really put myself into his journey...
A good movie that fictionally demonstrates some Buddhist concepts is Cloud Atlas.
Samsara is another good one.
There are plenty of lists (I've only seen the top three) online.

Here's a list of films carrying the Buddhist philosophy, most of them are arthouse.

Rashomon (1950)- Akira Kurosawa
Ikiru (1952) - Akira Kurosawa
Ugetsu (1953)- Kenji Mizoguchi
Sansho the Bailiff (1954)- Kenji Mizoguchi
The Burmese Harp (1956) - Kon Ichikawa
Onibaba (1964)- Kaneto Shindo
Kwaidan (1965) - Masaki Kobayashi
A Touch of Zen (1971) - King Hu
Baraka (1992) - Ron Fricke
Passage to Buddha (1993) - Hwa-Om-Kyung
The Cup (1999) - Khyentse Norbu
Samsara (2001) - Pan Nalin
Uncle Boonmee who can recall his past lives (2010) - Apichatpong Weerasethakul
The Tale of The Princess Kaguya (2013) - Isao Takahata

My favorite Buddhist films:

Zen (2009)
Un Buda (2005)
Why Has Bodhi-Dharma Left for the East? (1989)
10 Questions for the Dalai Lama (2006)
Peace is Every Step (1998)

If you want to find more one way is to click on the links above and look under "People who liked this also liked..."
Also there are these organizations:

Buddhist Film Foundation
Thus Have I Seen

The Buddhist Film Foundation is working on an archive of Buddhist films but at the time of writing i couldn't find anything public
Hope this answer helps you and others

Book: The Dalai Lama's Cat by David Mitchie. A fictional story told by a cat, who is the Dalai Lama's pet at Dharamsala. The Dalai Lama rescued this cat when it was very young. The entertaining story told by the cat is imbued with dhamma teachings. The teachings are of course expounded in a simple way, since a cat is a not a very intelligent animal.

Adding the classic Siddhartha by Herman Hesse.

No one mentioned what I take to be the single best movie of Buddhism ever made - Enlightenment Guaranteed!
Hilarious, to the point, and honest.

Books:
-Hesse's Siddhartha is interesting, but it is not an account of the Buddha himself.  It touches on elements of Buddha dharma, but can be somewhat confusing in its intermingling of dharma and Hindu Advaita
-I highly recommend Deathbed Sutra of the Buddha, but then again, I am the author, so I have a bit of a bias!
Film:
-Kundun, for Tibetan Buddhism
-The Buddha (PBS production)...with some annoying cartoon segments
-Little Buddha
-The Tibetan Book of the Dead - the version narrated by Leonard Cohen.  Available on Netflix, and quite good in the sense of a not being too "Hollywoodish"
-The Fountain:  philosophically, it's a bit of a mess, but it's an entetaining story that explores key Buddhist themes such as impermanence, self, and suffering. Great acting (Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz), directiong by Aronofsky, very "trippy" special effects,

The french born Wanderer and former Bhikkhu Isidhamma has specialed himself in producing dhammic stories in Burma which he/their give as present of Dhamma. Some are in burmese, french and english, or with subtitles.
You may contact him and get known his work on dhammadana.org
Some of them are:

The Great Legacy

Aye Mi is an ambitious photographer eager to start a career in advertising but doesn't have enough money to buy a camera. Her only hope is to recover a lost inheritance, a valuable ruby.

Aye Mi discovers that the jewel has been taken by some young evil witches who have menacing and corrupting powers. Facing her worst fears, she makes big sacrifices and will not stop for anything until she retrieves the stone.
Will Aye Mi ever doubt the value of what is unexpectedly discovered along the way?

Deliverance 2007
The box of desires

Dhamma Pictures has the pleasure to presents to you the uploading of our latest movie : "The box of desires". Quality Full HD. Don't forget to activate the English subtitles ("CC" button right & above the screen under Youtube). "The box of desires" is a love story beetwen two Myanmar teenagers who try to meditate in order to get a pure heart.

The taste of the Dhamma

It's good enough to experience this taste only once…

It's enough to know its flavour one single time…
Yati, 14 year old, is accused to be a witch because she knows many things that's usually impossible to know. Otherwise, she prodided powerful potions which have unwishable effects. Phu Phu, who accuses Ko Saing to make her drink a potion, had herself strange behaviors before to get the potion. In order to clarify this affair full of intrigues, the teacher organise a judgment with the three teenagers. Therefore, the most important will be to know how to find an antidote, the only one which is efficient…
This movie is offered to all. We − which include PDO's school's children of Mandalay − would appreciate that it been LIKED and SHARED. One clic is so easy. ; )

One may find a small collection of other movies and documentaries (not all really Dhamma Dana) here: "Buddhist" Documentary films - "Buddhistische" Dokumentarfilme
Not many are watched, so there no quality garanty can be given at large.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]