text:
What is non-duality in Buddhism?
I noticed some questioners on this site using the term "non-duality".
What is non-duality in Buddhism?
This is a well-known idea in Hinduism i.e. advaita. But does it exist in Buddhism?
Is it an official term in Buddhism, or just a convenient Western philosophy terminology to describe a concept just like the terms "ontology" or "epistemology"?
How is it used in Theravada and Mahayana? What are the Pali and Sanskrit terms for it?
AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

In this answer Andrei wrote, "In Mahayana, the focus is on transcending the dichotomy of Nirvana/Samsara" -- perhaps some people call that "non-duality".

None of the answers look competely satisfactory to me. From my perspective, nonduality (in the Buddhist sense of the word) is a key realization, so I will see if maybe I can write a more complete answer. It's a tough topic though, been thinking about it for two days and still not sure how to explain clearly.

@AndreiVolkov I wonder if it's what you alluded to in the first sentence of this answer, i.e. "craving"  is or causes a "duality" between the daydream and reality -- see also tathata i.e. " no longer a mismatch between'this' and imaginary 'that'".

There's a post here on that subject, which isn't long but difficult to summarise: The Dharma of Non-Duality
In the first (main) part the author says:

The word for "non-duality" is advaita
The Buddha didn't use that term (because it was already used then to mean "union of soul with God")
The Buddha did teach "non-duality" is many ways -- e.g. "neither self nor no-self", "middle way", "form and emptiness" (in the Heart Sutra), and "dependent origination implies neither self nor other"
Nagarjuna "used non-duality" in his Mulakarika
Etc.

In a second part (posted as a long comment on the first part), Hans Gruber argues that neither Nargajuna nor the Buddha teach non-duality:

Non-clinging isn't non-duality
Emptiness isn't non-duality, and different things are different even if they are dependently originated
Moving towards liberation (by reducing ignorance etc.) isn't non-duality
The Buddha didn't teach non-dualism as a metaphysical principle, instead he taught dependent origination (also didn't teach anatta as a metaphysical principle or abstract terms, but only as a "predicate" or "practice instruction" applicable to concrete terms i.e. any and all dhammas).

AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.
Yes I expect it's the same root: a+dvaya ("not a pair").
Looking at advaita compared with advaya reminds me of, I wonder if it's similar to, tatha versus tathata -- where one is the adjective (e.g. "true" or "non-dual, single") and the other is an abstract noun ("truth, suchness" or "non-duality") -- or Suñña versus Suññata i.e. "empty" versus "emptiness".
That might fit with Hans Gruber's saying that the Buddha didn't non-duality as a principle (e.g. as an abstract noun).

Advaita in Vedic Hinduism means Non-duality. Parallel to that "Advaya" (अद्वय) is also a Sanskrit word that means "identity, unique, not two, without a second," and typically refers to the two truths doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism, especially Madhyamaka.

Madhyamaka ("Middle way" or "Centrism"; Sanskrit: Madhyamaka, Chinese:
  中觀見; pinyin: Zhōngguān Jìan, Tibetan: dbu ma pa) also known as
  Śūnyavāda (the emptiness doctrine) and Niḥsvabhāvavāda (the no
  svabhāva doctrine) refers to a tradition of Buddhist philosophy and
  practice founded by the Indian philosopher Nāgārjuna (c. 150-250 CE).
  The foundational text of the Mādhyamaka tradition is Nāgārjuna's
  Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Root Verses on the Middle Way). More broadly,
  Madhyamaka also refers to the ultimate nature of phenomena and the
  realization of this in meditative equipoise. Central to Madhyamaka
  philosophy is śūnyatā, "emptiness", and this refers to the central
  idea that dharmas are empty of svabhāva.

Now, Nargarjuna only explained the concept of Buddha's Nirvana in his technical words.

In the Buddhist context, nirvana refers to realization of non-self and
  emptiness, marking the end of rebirth by stilling the fires that keep
  the process of rebirth going.

Actually the word "Vaan" means to possess something(like Balvan means who is strong, Dhanvan means who is rich, Purtravan means who has sons) and "Nir" means to reject. Hence, the word Nirvana in a way means to reject all the material things and attributes including mind, body and ego which leads to Sunyata(or emptiness), similar to the concept of Advaya or Advaita, as when every enlightened soul has attained Nirvana(rejection of everthing) into emptiness, they become one in that state. It is called Brahman in Vedas and nothingless is similar to space, in which everything exists but cant be seen. Like in Vedic mathematics, numbers start from 0, similarly everything in the world manifests from 0/Shunyata/emptiness/space and ends in 0 because of death of a person/entire creation.

Non-duality in Buddhism is the Mahayana doctrine. Nagarjuna refutes all positive metaphysical theories and views leaving standing only the neutral or 'middle way' theory required for a doctrine of Unity. This denies the fundamentals status of all distinctions and divisions.
Thus Nagarjuna's proof is able to serve as the philosophical foundation of Middle Way Buddhism, Taoism, advaita Vedanta, Sufism and Christian mysticism as presented by Eckhart, Nicolas de Cusa and their like, and by modern books by authors such as Paul Ferrini, Keith Ward  and David Bentley Hart. It is the acknowledged foundation for the monumental exposition of Christian teachings in 'A Course in Miracles' and 'A Course in Love'.
Nagarjuna is thought to have constructed his proof in order to address the divergence of views among the sangha of his time. He couldn't have done a more thorough job, but somehow his efforts didn't work. Yet his proof is unassailable and nobody has ever shown that his result is incorrect. He logically proves the non-dual nature of Reality and there is no reason every Buddhist should not accept this proof.
The topic is something of a can of worms since Nagarjuna's logical argument was designed to persuade everybody to agree on a single fundamental doctrine, and naturally this requires that many people change their views. Generally speaking, looking beyond Buddhism to 'mysticism' as a whole, it seems there is a growing consensus and understanding that the principle of non-duality is required for the knowledge claims of the mystics, such that if Reality is not the Unity of which they speak then their self-avowed knowledge would be impossible.
To confirm the endorsement of non-dualism by mystics across the ages is quite easy and it is actually difficult to miss once we know what to look for. But it is a difficult idea and so it takes time to learn what to look for. Thus it is often missed, It is invariably missed by academic philosophers, who rarely know anything of it.
It's a pity we cannot all agree on this since a denial of non-duality weakens the philosophical and intellectual plausibility of the Buddha's teachings and, according to Nagarjuna, renders them incoherent.

I think this can be summarised as, "Nagarjuna refutes positive metaphysical theories which leaves only the neutral theory required for a doctrine of Unity. So it can be the philosophical foundation for several brands of religion or mysticism. If we don't assume Buddhism is a doctrine of unity then we can't defend it in philosophy. He logically proves the non-dual nature of reality. I don't see why not every Buddhist accepts this proof. Outside Buddhism there's a growing consensus that the principle of non-duality is required to understand mysticism but philosophers rarely know anything of it."

Perhaps the question starts with a premise that there's more than one doctrine of non-duality -- i.e., "The doctrine named "non-duality" (advaita) is associated with Advaita Vedanta: that equates Atman and Brahman (neither of which are Buddhist doctrine, both maybe contrary to Buddhist doctrine). So why do some people associate "non-duality" with Buddhism? Does classical Buddhist doctrine refer to "non-duality" by name (if so is that using advaita or another word)? Or is it "convenient Western philosophy terminology to describe a concept (just like the terms 'ontology' or 'epistemology')"?

@ChrisW - It is not plausible that there is more than one non-dual doctrine. It's definition in metaphysics is so precise that there's almost no wriggle-room. But certainly there's plenty of room for different presentations and, of course, misunderstandings. Buddhism makes little use of the word but the idea is right there in the teachings. We see it in the Buddha's rejection of all extreme views. The idea that the mystic becomes one with Reality, that the Buddha's enlightenment was a Cosmic level event, depends on the Unity of All, and non-duality is a necessary principle for Unity.      .

Non-duality is the proposition there are not two things, that all distinctions and divisions are conceptual. It is difficult to turn this into a lot of competing ideas. It forces us to normalise on a single doctrine. The words 'Atman' and 'Brahman' would be local and optional. I see no reason to suppose there is more than one non-dual doctrine and cannot see how it would be possible. It seems that Nagarjuna had the same view, and attempted to define the doctrine clearly in order to put an end to heterodoxy.         . .

@ChrisW - By the way, your summary seems close to me. I would just change 'can be' in the second sentence to 'is'. What Nagarjuna shows is that either a religious doctrine is rooted in non-duality or it has no coherent metaphysical foundation. This is the significance of modern books like 'A Course in Miracles', that it places Christian teachings on a firm footing.and brings them into line with Buddhism, Taoism, advaita Vedanta and Sufism. Many Christians and Buddhists do not endorse this unified approach to religion, but over time I would expect this opposition to dissipate.  .

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance mentions "monism" in a couple of places.

@ChrisW - I've deleted the offending paragraph, having realised belatedly the point of your summary. Certainly lots of people speak of Zen and Indian religion as monism, but in philosophy it causes problems and doesn't work. It's the opposite of dualism and would be an extreme view to be abandoned. Monism indicates a numerical quantity while non-dualism indicates the transcendence of number and form.

Non duality is simply a description of when the psychological barriers between subject and object break down.  The experience is characterized by a sense of unity.  You might hear the sound of a cat meowing and feel like it’s coming from within your own body.  Sound doesn’t come to your ear but rather happens inside an emptiness that has no boundaries.  Movement happens in a medium that is stationary, etc.

Buddha rejected the two extremes of existence and non-existence and taught Dependent Origination. As far as I understand Buddha rejected an individual soul or universal soul.


text:
Is there a "canon" of Zen Koans?
There are lots of Koans on the internet, but I am not sure if there is some sort of process that a Koan must go through, or if there is some sort of list of Koans that are taught and that new ones are not added.
Meaning, if a Koan is just made up on the spot by some random person, and the Koan is unrelated to the core principals of Zazen, I presume it wouldn't be taught by a Japanese Zen master. Which leads me to believe that there are some sort of "canon" of Koans.

Sure - the Blue Rock Collection, the Mumonkan, the Book of Serenity, etc.  We mostly stick to those because, frankly, they're freaking fantastic and have been leading people to enlightenment for over 1200 years.  Why reinvent the wheel?  Of course, just about every teacher will often make up a koan on the spot to help a student with a specific obstacle.  Some of these remain in circulation among some lineages, but they rarely (if ever) rise to the prominence of something collected in the afore mentioned texts.

Exactly what I needed! Thanks!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
About two qualities of the Dhamma
I've seen in plenty of discussions and threads that there are some criteria to keep in mind while trying to separate the "real Dhamma" from the "fake" one.
For example, in AN 11:13 there is a fragment which tell us that:

The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.

A few questions:
1) When differentiating between teachings, should we consider all these quatities at the same time? Or should we pick one over the others?
2) If some teaching is not inmediately effective, but the results (as described in the suttas) are seen after a long, dedicated practice, should we discard that teaching?
3) If a practicant is not able to perceive something described in the suttas inmediately, should we discard such suttas a priori, or should he/she consider the possibility of not being "sensible" enough (i.e. not having reached the minimum level of spiritual maturity for perceiving such X aspect of the Teaching)?
4) How can we know if some alleged result is not perceived due to my own current lack of experience, or if it's because the teaching is false?
Thanks in advance for your time and patience.
Kind regards!

Commercial Dhamma is no refuge: "The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves"

If some teaching is not inmediately effective, but the results (as described in the suttas) are seen after a long, dedicated practice, should we discard that teaching?
I'm not sure that "immediately effective" is a good translation -- may be misleading.
The Pali word is akaliko i.e. "without time" which I'd guess might have a range of meanings ...

"Timeless" -- i.e. not limited to a specific time ... maybe "eternally" true
"Immediate" (not "immediately effective") -- i.e. "relevant to" or "applicable" or "practicable" now
Continual or continuous

... as well as "without delay". When you translate you have to pick to pick one translation (e.g. "immediately effective"), which may not convey the whole range.
See also What is Sat-Dharma?
Also he translated -- and I don't mean to criticise, but I don't know why he did it -- as "immediately effective" something that's maybe two (separate) adjectives in the original: i.e. "immediate" and "effective".
For example, see here ...

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo:
  The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:
sandiṭṭhiko akāliko
  visible here and now, immediate,
ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  inviting to come and see, effective,
paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

... where "immediate" and "effective" are two separate words (akāliko and opaneyyiko), though the dictionary also gives "immediate result" as one of the meanings of akāliko.
Also maybe "immediately effective" is correct -- if it's understand as, "successful practice has a present effect".
That might lead to a "No true Scotsman" argument (e.g. "If it's not immediately effective then you're not practising it correctly"), but anyway.
If a practicant is not able to perceive something described in the suttas inmediately, should we discard such suttas a priori?
Perhaps not.
For example I read The Radio Amateur's Handbook when I was child -- that book explains how to build various radios, and starts with the "basics" -- an explanation of electronic components and the behaviours of electromagnetic radiation. I think the lessons in the book were "true", but I didn't/couldn't understand most of it when I read it -- I understood a bit more when I read it the second time, and a bit more again the third time.
So I don't think it's sensible to "discard" lessons, which we're told are true and useful, just because we don't understand them immediately.
That said I do tend to classify lessons into "useful" and "not useful", and a lesson that I don't [yet] understand might be not [yet] useful for me -- not that it's false, just that I'm not yet sure how to use it.
So bits of Dhamma which I don't understand, I tend to put "on the shelf" -- perhaps I don't understand how to use it, but I don't want to discard it either.
Also I think that a lot of the doctrine is meant to be practised, practical. If it's like other "practices", it's something that people ("students") become better or more skilled at, as a result of practice. If you view it like that, then you might prefer not to say, "If I can't practice it immediately -- do it perfectly without effort, without practice, without mistakes -- then it isn't 'timeless' and I can discard it."
How can we know if some alleged result is not perceived due to my own current lack of experience, or if it's because the teaching is false?
I think we were supposed to use the four great references to determine whether something is the Buddha's doctrine.

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


text:
Is it a layman's duty to be Vegan?
From a scriptural point of view, Buddha did not forbid the consumption of meat, let alone animal products etc., but what we do know is that 'Right Livelihood' tells us to not work as a butcher.
Put in modern context, do Buddhist practitioners have a moral responsibility to become vegan?
Can abuse, exploitation, commodification, torturing & unnecessary killing of sentient animals ever be morally justified in our modern day & age, where plenty of alternatives are readily available?
Once we know about the abattoir's conditions around the world, we are informed & we thereby have to take kammic responsibility, otherwise we will partake in the deaths of trillion animals, due to our demand for animal products.

There are several questions on this site tagged [tag:vegetarianism] -- including Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?, and, Are all Buddhists vegetarian?

From a scriptural point of view, Buddha did not forbid the consumption of meat, let alone animal products etc., but what we do know is that 'Right Livelihood' tells us to not work as a butcher.

You cannot kill or case others to kill. If another person kills independently without your mediation and you buy and consume this then it is fine.
Countries like Burma have been very much meat centric diets. Buddhism may not have survived it preached veganism.
If you sufficiently distance your self to the extent that your conscience is clear then this is sufficient.

Once we know about the abattoir's conditions around the world, we are informed & we thereby have to take kammic responsibility, otherwise we will partake in the deaths of trillion animals, due to our demand for animal products.

Karma is volition which is acted upon. So what ever happens in the world, to which on does not contribute in volition and action, does not result in any karmic retribution.
If you can take some action to reduce deaths of animals this will definitely be positive Karma. If you are not successful at it still there is no negative Karma. At least trying would be positive Karma.

If I know the horrific conditions in slaughterhouses and I buy it, I still support the system because all economic systems work on supply & demand.

In this case it is best not to buy as your it effects your mind. For someone else who is uneffected then it might be OK. The mind is the forerunner not the outcome in Buddhism.

If you know there is a corrupt company selling you a product would you buy it? Similarly, if you know the conditions in factory farms & you still buy it you are morally accountable for these actions. Let me ask you this: Is it morally acceptable to kill animal in first world countries, where it's technically not necessary in order to live a happy life?

@Mr.Jabato It's a topic on which different Buddhists or different schools of Buddhism disagree -- it's a "controversy" which is the subject of lot of argument on other sites. Note please that this site is principally for asking and answering questions, and not for arguing. If you don't understand Suminda's answer you can use a comment to ask about it -- but in general please try to avoid using comments for "debating a controversial point".

There's no avoiding death; even the act of killing is unavoidable.  Veganism is veil pulled over reality.  It is a moral dressing that obscures the first noble truth.  Veganism violates the fourth precept by misrepresenting the first.  It deludes us into thinking that liberation from suffering can occur through action rather than insight.
Veganism denies that death is an inevitable part of living.  It sells us the lie that we can eat a diet that somehow is free from it.  This is only possible if one lives at one remove from our food system, at one remove from reality.   When we are truly intimate with the world, we become keenly aware that no diet exists apart from destruction.  Moreover, when the avoidance of death becomes our litmus for all moral action, it hampers our ability to express ourselves as fully moral beings.  Just think of all the environmental devastation wrought by our agriculture system - even one that doesn't kill animals for food.  Think of the desertification wrought by GMO soy, the ammonia emissions from Haber-Bosch nitrogen fertilizers, the aquatic life killed by farm runoff, the million of insects - even those we depend on for our food - that are wasted by chemical pesticides.  Simply not eating meat won't solve any of those problems.  If anything, it will exacerbate them.  After all, even a small, organic farm ultimately requires animals inputs to grow fertility.
Being a Bodhisattva doesn't mean that you have to kill, but it does require you to acknowledge your unavoidable role in killing.  To say that you can exist otherwise is deny your place in Indra's net and your connection to all sentient beings.

You are wrong an several ocassions. One, although death cannot be avoided, that doesn't mean that we must unnecessarily support the meat & dairy industries with our money. Second, Veganism is not about being pure, but to avoid intentional cruelty & exploitation to all sorts of animals, be it human or non-human. Vegans are aware that killing is inevitable, but there is a difference between killing with intentionally & unintentionally. If a person now know this fact & still supports these industries, it's up to their moral conscience. Your point about soy is wrong too, since animals need it too

Actually, meat eating is one of the biggest factors of global warming and to a lot of deforestation. Animals need much more plant foods to begin with. So if hypothetically the majority of world would turm vegan then we would still consume less plants than now. Not to mention all the water that is needed to feed livestock & all the emitted methane.

It's a mistake to say "liberation from suffering can occur through action rather than insight". Remember that "Right Action" is a factor of the path. Also saying
"the act of killing is unavoidable" or "Veganism violates the fourth precept" (which is not true) doesn't make sense.  What matters is the underlying intention of a deed. If one avoid to buy meat or animal products merely out of goodwill, then he/she is tuned with the Dhamma.

You’re conflating industrial agriculture with sustainable ag.  There are ways of raising meat that are much more sustainable, even regenerative.  Managed range land, for instance, actually sequesters more carbon than it emits.  Pastured poultry increases biodiversity and soil fertility.  Neither of those systems require soy or GMO crops.  Hunting doesn’t even require land to be cleared.  Being vegan unfortunately naturally puts one at one remove from these practices and aligns one with an extractive industrial system that is far more damaging to all sentient beings.

And right action is a means to insight; by itself, it’s incapable of ending suffering.  You can’t action into being a liberated world or mind.  Only true intimacy born of insight can do that.  Ultimately, clinging to rites, rituals, and the rafts that bear one across the river have to be abandoned.

But again, you are welcome to do as you wish.  You have to be a special kind of asshole to fault someone for not wanting to kill things.  Ultimately, however, I think veganism is an incomplete solution.  I doubt the Buddha would have specifically disallowed it otherwise.

You have to be a special kind of asshole to fault someone Yeah, I thought that stung a little, when I read it. I feel no remorse though, about choosing a vegetarian diet, so it couldn't sting a lot. Anyway I thought the criticism, such as it was, might be for arguing that one is "holier than thou" on that account.

Why should you feel any remorse for being vegetarian?  If that’s how you face emptiness, I say go for it.  It really sticks in my craw when people go after vegetarians, et al for doing what they think is right.  I don’t necessarily agree with their choice - I think it misses the full picture - but it’s silly (if not completely asshat) to fault them for it.


text:
I'm confused about the seemingly irrational prioritization or vagueness (?) relating to the "3rd precept" compared to 5th precept of the 5 precepts
I am confused why in many versions of the 5 precepts I have encountered that the 5th precept is seemingly beneficial about "refraining from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness." but compared to this the 3rd precept is seemingly only about "refraining from sexual misconduct" or "refraining from sensual misconduct".
It seems to me one is to refrain from the use of intoxicating substances but sexual activity of some sort is permitted? Why is some sexual activity permitted?
I've been confused about the 5 precepts because to me it seems possible that in some instances one can cause oneself more suffering through engaging in sexual activity than through using intoxicating substances e.g. a) if I engaged in an all day oral-sex marathon compared to b) if I for pleasure went into the garden and picked 2 leaves of Melissa officinalis and made cold-brewed tea with those 2 leaves using rainwater that I had collected (brewing time 2 minutes) and had a sip of that tea.
To my knowledge option b) would be less suffering for me but wouldn't I be breaking the 5th precept ("refraining from intoxicants") if I did option b)?
but if I chose option a) then according to some interpretations I would be keeping the 3rd precept ("refraining from sexual misconduct") but to me it seems I would be suffering more?
So why would it according to some interpretations of the 5 precepts seemingly be possible to keep the 5 precepts but seemingly cause myself more suffering than breaking that interpretation of the 5 precepts and choosing option b) and seemingly suffering less?
If the 3rd precept is interpreted as meaning "refraining from sensual misconduct" then what does that mean one is to refrain from besides the "prohibited sexual acts" mentioned in the suttas?
It seems that there would still be the "irrational prioritization" I described with option a) and option b) if "sensual misconduct" is defined only as the sexual acts that are explicitly prohibited as written in the suttas.
If "sensual misconduct" means something more than the sexual acts that are explicitly prohibited in the suttas then what does it mean? It seems vague (?).
If the 3rd of the 5 precepts is interpreted as meaning only "sexual misconduct" then is anything else prohibited besides what is listed as "sexual misconduct" in the suttas I know of.
Why isn't the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts  "I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity."?

In my understanding, these precepts are mainly to avoid causing damage or suffering to other through unethical and mindless deeds. It's not so much a guide to aliviatr suffering in itself; that's the purpose of the Noble Eightfold Path, with the precepts being an implicit part of the Right Action/Conduct. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores Because that's an answer it would be better posted as an answer than a comment.

Sexual misconduct is described in MN 41:

He misconducts himself in sensual pleasures; he has
  intercourse with women who are protected by their mother, father,
  mother and father, brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband,
  who are protected by law, and even with those who are garlanded in
  token of betrothal.

Firstly, this only applies to lay people.
Some of these are phrased in such a way that it applies to the cultural context of 5th century BCE India.
However, if I translate it to the modern context of today and making it gender-neutral, it is something like:

Sex with an underage person, who are under the guardianship of their parents by law
Sex with those who are under the guardianship of their relatives (i.e. they are not independent adults even if they are adults)
Sex with people who are married to others
Sex with people who are engaged to others or in a committed relationship with others
Sex with those not allowed by the law, for e.g. prisoners. I think this could also apply to sex with members of the monastic order. This may also apply to other contexts like teachers with their students etc.

Hence, consensual casual sex between two unmarried unattached independent lay adults, doesn't seem to be covered by this precept.
Also, using legalized prostitution doesn't seem to be covered by this precept. However, prostitutes themselves (and others working in other roles in the industry) would be violating Right Livelihood as a trade of the flesh.
The purpose of the third precept is in my opinion, to avoid and eradicate the negative states of mind (especially deception, guilt and remorse) created by cheating on a relationship or by having sex in a relationship that is forbidden or inappropriate. Somebody who cheats on their partner tends to also lie to the partner, which violates another precept on speaking the truth.
What about alcohol and drugs? The context here is that under the influence of intoxicating substances, one temporarily loses the mental capacity to discriminate between right and wrong i.e. one becomes heedless and acts without self-control. The purpose of the fifth precept is to prevent loss of self-control.
If you need to consume intoxicating substances in small quantities for medicinal reasons, in such a way that it doesn't make you heedless, then I don't see how this would violate the precept.
You must remember that the five precepts are the bare minimum when it comes to virtues.
Sensual enjoyment of the sexual act with a spouse is not forbidden for lay people. Also, alcohol and drugs are not covered by the precept for the sensual enjoyment potential, but rather for the loss of self-control. So, it is not sensual enjoyment that is the target of the Five Precepts. Sensual enjoyment is targeted by the Eight Precepts and Ten Precepts.

I marked this answer down because to me it did not actually translate it to the modern context of today. It just repeated what is written in the suttas. Regards

In the Buddha's time, for the most part, children were married off to a suitable partner by their parents when the children came of age (DN 31; AN 4.55). Until the girl was married, she did not engage in sex and was "protected" by her family, per the wording in the 3rd precept (AN 10.176). The young wife went to live in the family or clan of the husband (SN 37.3). They had children and spent their lives attending to family and clan duties. The 3rd precept was spoken in this cultural social context. It was not spoken to reflect the sexual hedonism of birth controlled sterilized 21st century society. In summary, once upon a time, women got pregnant easily when they had sex, therefore they were looked upon as wives & mothers rather than as sex objects and probably sex was engaged in relatively infrequently & cautiously (to control and avoid pregnancy). Obviously, in the Buddha's time, only relatively few people (such as the upper classes) engaged in an all day sex marathons. Therefore, there is no problem with the precepts. The problem is not discerning and understanding how freaky and abnormal 21st century dystopian sexual norms are.

It seems obviously the 3rd precept as written does not apply to homosexuality. The Buddha was silent on homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality according to Buddhism will follow general principles. The general principles of Buddhism are: (i) actions primarily motivated by lust & (ii) not primarily motivated by real love & compassion; (iii) are unwholesome & will lead to  suffering results. The general principles are heavy indulgence in sensuality brings little real happiness & much disappointment. Thus homosexual relationships should focus on fidelity, real love, commitment & skilful qualities

"are: (i) actions primarily motivated by lust & (ii) not primarily motivated by real love & compassion; (iii) are unwholesome & will lead to suffering results. The general principles are heavy indulgence in sensuality brings little real happiness & much disappointment." love this explanation.

The need or urge for "sex" is a biological mental pressure that afflicts beings. "Marriage" is a method to deal with the urge or need so it doesn't make a greater mess or problem. In "marriage", two people learn to help, support & care for eachother, thus developing skilful qualities. Also, men & women have families with children; which helps them mature as selfless giving people. These "marriage" arrangements are better than promiscuity, where there is the continual chronic search for sexual partners & the associated despair (called "hungry ghost" in Buddhism"). Kind regards

A "loophole" certainly exists but the goal of Buddhism is not to look for loopholes.

The Buddha obviously did not focus on teaching homosexuals and others outside of the family orientated society; as shown by the teachings given in DN 31. That is why, if a person is homosexual and interested in Buddhism, they must use the general principles for guidance. The general principle is if an act is primarily motivated by lust, it is an unwholesome action. This also applies to non-married hetereosexuals. The 3rd precept is highlighting family relationships. Regards

In the 3rd precept is that if you are under care or protection of another party as a partner, guardian, government, religious vows, family or oneself one should not engage in sexual acts. If one bring the other person under ones care or protection through marriage then one is free to have sex provided the the other party is willing (other party does not want to protect her self from advances).
The 5th precept is that one does not take anything will reduces ones deligence, mindfulness or concentration. This also may lead to breaking the other precepts.

Householder Angus, interested,
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
first of all, precepts, as a means of harmlessness and therefore freedom of remorse, which is required to gain concentration, wisdom and release, has layers, starting by the most outwardly, keeping conventions in relationships outwardly, are then observed in more and more refined stages, turning more inwardly. Only once ones own mind and it's quality is known, precepts become non-hypocritical in all aspects and only if the Dhamma has been realiced, precepts become naturally.
The five precepts focus is that of a worldling (faith, dhamma-follower) to possible arrive at the path at lifetime or to gain good next existance, and the path of Dhamma is actually the observance of eight precepts, at least part-time, observing the Brahma-caria, abstaining from sense-pleasures, beginning with the Uposatha on Uposatha days and permanent for Yogies. The eight are the obsevances of a Dhammika, Upasaka, Upasika, real insiders.
For learning to observe precepts, one may take on this talk given: Obsering the (5) precepts - Einhalten der (5) Tugendregeln
A person outwardly the Dhamma-Vinaya (not instructed with the good Dhamma) might observe what ever precepts good for his particulary relationships, but this virtue is seldom the virtue of the Noble Ones and merely always hypocritical, taking side for own interests and own relations for gains.
The first stage is that of a faith-follower, simply using them as no-go by faith, as far and as often he remembers them, to make decitions. He trust that the 6 senses and it's objects are not real, no refuge and therefore harming on their sake would not have much value.
The second person is that of a Dhamma-follower, who understands by logic that the six senses and objects are not real, no refuge, and so follows likewise the first person.
Only the stream enter, one who has actually realized that the senses and there objects, and all phenomenas arising related (feeling, touch...) to them, are not real, no refuge, not satifying, subject of decay, not worthy to give into, is a person with purified virtue, keeps precepts out of understanding. Yet he still might break in not fatal amout out of affect-actions, quickly see the fault, not hide them, pardon for them, and walk on.
Only an Arahat has perfect virtue since he has not only abound holding on things, but also no more taking on them at first place.
On that matter my person had given more extended explainings in a requested Dhammatalk: Perfect virtue. (one may feel given to take birth, an account, to access)
Let my person continue here later for now.
Now let us look on the 3 prectept, which starts by not harming societies harmony, yet it is a society that nevertheless engages in sexuality. By indulging in the sense-pleasure without unfare trade, without harming the partner, without acting disturbing and fear increasing for society and others, it is enought at this point. Don't forget that intercourse means actually "marriage" and taking on responsibilities, having caused relationship. On a more refined stage, one that abstains from sensual pleasures, it becomes a matter of Brahmacariya, holy life, and also here are stages, seven counted by the Buddha, ending at the last unvirtuose life for the sake of heavenly unification:
AN 7.47: Methuna Sutta — The Discourse on Coupling

The Buddha explains that the bondage of sexuality is not just a matter of sexual intercourse. In this discourse he describe a certain Brahman the seven levels of bondage out of drive for unification.

This practice beyond just physical intercourses is that of one having reached the path to once-returner till Arahatship. Even within this seven stages, there are many aspects, only seen by one knowing mind. Engaging in normal sozialisation is also a-brahmacariya.
Now the same counts for indoxication, the 5th precept, which cause heedlessness or lack of shame and fear of wrongdoing. The pleasure of indoxicating, in and of itself, is not really that bad, but the actions which follow easy can be very harmfull. For oneself indoxication has the result that being never respected by others, that it cause stupidy and lazyness, leading to poorness in all aspects.
It starts by taking means that cause lose of moral shame, alcohol, certain drugs penetrating the body via mouth, blood or beath. Physical indoxication that causes heedlessness, lack of conscious. Intensive indulgence in sense pleasures, by the strong addiction, can cause heedlessness as well, thinking on stealing, killing... for the sake of strong beloved sense pleasure. Only if sense-desire has overcome, all indoxications, causing more or lesser shamelessness, are abound.
On the most refined level there are the three indoxications:

indoxication with youth
indoxication with health
indoxication with life

As long one is drunken in not seeing the first Noble truth, aging, sickness and death, the dangers and meaningless grasping after senses and there objects, one will not be perfect in leading the holy life, Brahmacariya.
Seeing now that there are so many stages and aspects, it's hard to distinguish and compare the levels of virtue beyound the three levels of still attached to sensuality, abound sensuality, and abound all desires for the world of all senses.
One possible way to distinguish those levels are the five kind of beings and six kinds in the world:

virtue of a worldling heading downwardly
virtue of a worldling heading upwardly
virtue of a streamwinner
virtue of aonce-returner
virtue of a no-returner
virtue of an Arahat

Vipassana starts with observing Silas, body, speech, and it's realted intentions. One who observes Silas serious in daily life, following the pattern given in the teachings to the Buddhas son, Rahula, is sure to arrive at Unbond and release.
Now, if having already taken refuge, taken precepts, it's good to express encouragement, possible to take refuge on it, to take Silas by heart on it, as well.

Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti.
  Through virtue they go to a good bourn.
Sīlena bhoga-sampadā.
  Through virtue is wealth attained.
Sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti.
  Through virtue they go to Liberation.
Tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.
  Therefore we should purify our virtue.

A possible extented, revised and more detail answer as well as given proper space to ask further and discuss, has been given here: [Q&A] Confusion about the equal value, priority, of the single 5 precepts
(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)

Why is a person allowed to engage in sexual activity but not allowed to drink a small cup of weak tea?

One can do what ever one whats, householder Angus. One faithful observes or not, or reached integrity, doing it "naturally". As for indoxicants causing lack of shame and fear of wrong doing, especially the wrong in relation or even harmful sex-matters are fast conducted..

The main and always mentioned, are the first 4, the fifth is a protective addition as support of the first four.

Much better, of course, and more benefits from it, replacing kama, fleshly wrong engagement with abrahmacariya. Here, how ever, the 10 akusala actions, taught to a householder asking in regard of becoming in "heavens" or "hells".  More benefit for one is to focus on that one does and does not like to abound and steady seeks justification why not... (self-honesty, most importand). Being able to let go of any relation-interaction for joy but not able to give up sensepleasure in this or that? Good to investigate what drives.

my person does not know what "weak coldbrewed tea" is. Certain fermented nourishment or medicine, actually containing small amout of alcohol, are allowed for monks and so also kind of meassure for lay-practice. Nurishment, medicine, not falling into shamelessness and fearlessness of doing wrong.

If talking about this "Cold brew tea, there is not easy a way to act kammic unskillful and in no way any precept broken with such, even if strong.

Maybe listen a talk is releasing: 03 What Is Skillful?

So "allowed" is not the right word to use for precepts. I do not know what word to use. "If talking about this "Cold brew tea," tea like that was one of the things I was thinking of. Are you saying that if one consumes that tea it doesn't break the "5th precept" of "the 5 precepts" even if the tea is strong? Camellia sinensis ( "tea") is psychoactive.

What do you mean that all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real"?

Camellia sinensis: don't know it. If it makes shameless, drunken, don't use. If such as coffein, no problem to use as medice, no problem to enjoy if holding just 5 precepts.

"What do you mean that all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real"?" that would be a ggod question, householder Angus.

Not that western have but a lot of their popular health food ideas into the precepts. Less of this mostly Mahayana ideas of virtue fit to the Ariya virtue.

If you’re struggling with what the precepts are getting at, then they are serving their purpose.  The precepts are factories of insight as much as they are training rules.

Sadhu, so is it: observing Silas is doing Vipassana.

The Pali Canon lays out general guidelines for goodness in AN4.201.

And what is a good person?
  It’s someone who doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence.

And (SN55.37) defines the ethical conduct of a lay follower of the Buddha:

“When a lay follower doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or consume alcoholic drinks that cause negligence,
  they’re considered to be an ethical lay follower.”

Monks have their own precepts, which are stricter. For example, celibacy is required rather than simply refraining from sexual misconduct.
Precepts are guidelines for conduct. They help us become aware of and restrain non-ethical behavior. The more we live with them the more our understanding evolves. Consider sexual misconduct. If we have sex with a spouse while driving, that is sexual misconduct. If we drink cough medicine with some alcohol, it generally does not cause negligence--if it did, we would stop using that medicine. Precepts help us step back from the impulse of the moment. They help us be mindful and ethical. And because of this, they help us lessen suffering.

Perhaps it depends on whether it's the "five precepts" or "eight precepts":

The Eight Precepts are based on the Five Precepts, with the third precept extended to prohibit all sexual activity and an additional three precepts that are especially supportive to meditation practice.

Perhaps the first precepts are at least partly to protect or benefit other people -- i.e. don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and don't break up other people's families.

In my understanding of the 3rd precept, kamesu micchacara means "acting out of fondness for sensual pleasure".
So, the rule is very clear. You should not act out of desire to indulge, but only for a noble cause. Meaning, you can have sex, or get a massage, or eat food - what matters is why. If you are getting it in order to enjoy - you are in violation.
When it comes to sex, for lay people, this translates to only having sex for procreation, and perhaps for bonding between husband and wife - but not for mere lust&pleasure. Hence the elaboration that explains that no extramarital sex is allowed, etc. - because it would obviously be for pleasure.
For monks, this translates into having no sex at all, because they have no goal of procreation or bonding, and when you eliminate these two, why else would you have sex if not for pleasure?
This also explains why high Tibetan Lamas consider it a valid spiritual practice to engage in unmarried sex with lay women. Their goal is to impregnate the women with genes that have higher odds of having an aptitude for Dharma, which makes this act motivated by a noble cause and not mere sensual desire.


text:
Can anyone please list important books on Buddhism?
What all are the important books, that are part of Buddhism, other than Dhammapada?

See also List of book recommendations

This depends on which Buddhist school or tradition you are referring to.
For the Theravada school, the main scripture is the Pali Canon or the Tipitaka, in the Pali language. Tipitaka means the three baskets. The three are the Sutta Pitaka which is the basket on the teachings of the Buddha and his disciples, the Vinaya Pitaka which is the basket on the monastic rules, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka which is the basket of philosophical analysis.
Here's one view of it below. The Dhammapada is only one book of the 15 books of the Khuddaka Nikaya, which is part of the Sutta Pitaka.
You can find it online at AccessToInsight or SuttaCentral.
There are also the commentaries to the Tipitaka and other supplementary writings, such as the Visuddhimagga.
Also see Chronological or other sequence for beginners, Recommendation for Suttas and How to Study the Suttas?.
Other Buddhist scripture for Mahayana Buddhism are either in Sanskrit, Chinese or Tibetan. The Vajrayana school is part of Mahayana.

What is the main difference in Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism? I have understood that Mahayana is based on Shunyata and Madyamaka(middle path)

@ManuKumar There is this answer but I think you can also ask another question here at Buddhism.SE.


text:
What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating?
What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating?
I know that cannabis has been used for pain relief but if the use of the cannabis is intoxicating then what is the right view of what is appropriate regarding the use of the cannabis as a medicine?
Are there any suttas which seem like they might be helpful in answering this question?

My impression is medical cannabis does not have an intoxicating effect.
Regardless, the precept on intoxicants refers to heedlessness. If a person has a serious medical condition and must use ordinary intoxicating cannabis for relief then it is expected they would be morally mature enough for the cannabis to not lead to heedlessness.

I have changed what I wrote in my question to refer to "marijuana" specifically because I guess "cannabis" is more general and I wanted to specifically reference something more obviously intoxicating.
From what I understand "medical cannabis" can mean use of cannabis that produces an intoxicating effect.
But I do think that there are various methods of use and forms of medical cannabis where there is little to no intoxicating effect.

As long as it is for true medical purpose as a treatment when there are no other similarly effective alternatives, and one is not using possible medical benefits as an justification but consuming it for toxication, then it is fine.
General sprescribed medication as a treatment and given but a doctor is fine.
If one seeks toxicating meditations of the toxicating benefits then it is not OK.

Let me ask you this, can you enter samadhi when you're high?  How easy is it to maintain mindfulness when you've smoked a bowl?  Is your awareness as sharp?  Can you establish atapi or sampajanna?  I know when I used to smoke, getting rid of anything that could be construed as ardent and clearly comprehending was kinda the point.
One thing that I think gets lost in regards to the fifth precept is this blunting of perception.  When we reduce this training rule to only those conditions that cause heedlessness, we ignore the larger way this precepts figures into our training.  I mean, think about it.  Are all of those fermented substances listed by the precept really the only things that cause intoxication?  Of course not.  There are plenty of other psychoactive compounds and not all of them are chemically derived.  Porn, biased news coverage, our phones, and countless other vices remove us from full engagement with experience.  They cut us off from the moment.  There is only so much mental real estate we're afforded.  When we crap it up with these mental intoxicants, there's no room left for the path.
Of course, this doesn't mean we should beat ourselves up.  If a life saving medicine makes you a little woozy (e.g. chemotherapy), by all means go for it.  You aren't much use as a Buddha if you're dead.  But if the choice is between popping a couple of Benadryl and going all balloon head or having a running nose, sit down on the cushion and let your nose drip down your chin.  I think you'll find that samadhi is a rather impressive panacea.  More importantly, our egos hate it when we suffer.  It's an affront to everything it stands for.  Embrace these minor irritations and club it over the head.

I think the key word in the fifth precept isn't "intoxicating" but Pamadatthana i.e.

Pamāda
  carelessness, negligence, indolence, remissness

See also other topics on this site which describe pamada:

What is the purpose of the 5th precept?
How do different traditions define "intoxicant"?

Apparently, in Thailand doctors make fewer prescriptions for cancer pain than you might expect -- I don't know whether that's because of Buddhism though.
I think I read once that pain itself can, if it's intense enough, cause "heedlessness" -- perhaps a Buddhist would prescribe a medicine-which-causes-heedlessness to the extent it's necessary to alleviate pain-which-causes-greater-heedlessness.
Buddhist monks are allowed to take medicines which they "need". I think it's another monk who might decide whether they "need" something (or at least decide whether they need to see a doctor), but also monks aren't allowed to act as medical doctors for laypeople, so there's not much answer to your question from that source.
A very general answer -- a way to maybe answer start to answer it yourself - might be to relate it to remorse: i.e. if you feel "remorse" after doing something perhaps that's a sign that it would be better to steer clear of doing that.
See also Experiencing physical pain


text:
Does Dhp 256-257 condone judging others?
In several answers on this site, judging others as judge or jury is looked upon unfavourably, for both lay people and monks. It is often said that the one who passes a guilty or innocent verdict, would carry some karmic consequences.
However, the following quote from the Dhammapada seems to condone the act of judging others.
Is this the right interpretation of these Dhammapada verses or is there another interpretation?
Maybe it's just a metaphor? If so, a metaphor for what?
On the other hand, if this is the correct interpretation, then could these verses be used to endorse the participation of lay Buddhists as judge or jury?
Dhammapada 256-257 as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

To pass judgment hurriedly
  doesn't mean you're a judge.
  The wise one, weighing both
  the right judgment & wrong,
judges others impartially —
  unhurriedly, in line with the Dhamma,
  guarding the Dhamma,
  guarded by Dhamma,
  intelligent:
  he's called a judge.

Dhammapada 256-257 as translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita:

Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just; a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong.
He who does not judge others arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian
  of law and is called just.

Does householder actually ask's in regard of judgment or in regard of execution on it's accord, for right judging in never wrong and always needed. Maybe that clears up the questions ensnare.

Is this the right interpretation of these Dhammapada verses or is there another interpretation?
The 'origin story' associated with that verse is here:

The Story of the Judge
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verses (256) and (257) of this book with reference to some judges who were corrupt.
One day, some bhikkhus were returning from their round of alms-food when it rained and they went into a law court to take shelter. While they were there, they found out that some judges, having taken bribes, were deciding cases arbitrarily. They reported the matter to the Buddha and the Buddha replied,

"Bhikkhus! In deciding cases, if one is influenced by affection or by monetary consideration, he cannot be called 'the just', or 'a judge who abides by the law.' If one weighs the evidence intelligently and decides a case impartially, then he is to be called, 'the just' or 'a judge who abides by the law.'"

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 256: He is not just if he decides a case arbitrarily; the wise man should decide after considering both what is right and what is wrong.
Verse 257: The wise man who decides not arbitrarily but in accordance with the law is one who safeguards the law; he is to be called 'one who abides by the law (dhammattho)'.

Householder Ruben, interested,
Don't confuse judging (discrimination) with acting on (execution of) a judgement.
Right judgement is most important, and of course always approved and encouraged. It's different in relation to acting in certain ways on a judgement, or to believing that ones judgement could change things afterwards.
So one who has the duty to judge others' acts should of course not lie, nor judge improperly out of affection or other reasons, taking side. However, it would be improper to approve harmful acts executed on account of one's judgement (even proper judgement), not to mention if harm occurs on account of improper judgement.
In how far one could act properly in certain circumstances, relying on certain societies with their proper or improper means, would be different from case to case.
Again, there is never any real duty if it violates the basic precepts, either lying or physical harming, depriving... by body, signs or thoughts.
And even a monk would be called to judge cases in their society -- yet the execution on those acts have no physical harming as it's consequence, or does it make what's done undone, but it's to support the further practice and headed to reestablishment in the community.
So these two things -- judging, and acting on a judgement -- should be divided, so that it may not be taken wrongly.
(Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange, trade or entertainment, but as means for doing merits toward release.)

If you are in the position of a Judge than you should carry out the duties justly.
Even if you are in the military Buddhism does not say one should not discard ones duties at war.
All professions are needed for the functioning of society.
But is one accepts such profession, one should accept the karmic consiqueses also. If one is to avoid it one must avoid such professions.
If a judge passes a death sentence this carries the consequence. If you already a judge then you have to do what you must do. If you could have avoided such a profession then you would not be in such a situation. Knowing onee might need to pronounce death sentaces if one takes up the profession one will be also opening up the possibility to tracegressing the precepts, which is a promise of constrain of ones conduct.
In the case of monks the case is different. One should try to be according to the Vinaya and liberating oneself not be involved in social affairs.


text:
Did the Buddha ever refute the view of "extreme metaphysical nihilism" e.g. a view that "nothing is real"?
Important note: I am only using the word "real" only in the sense of meaning "exists and is not an illusion".
I am defining "extreme metaphysical nihilism" as the belief that "nothing is real".
I do not know if the belief that "nothing is real" is (also) called something else but if it is then please tell me.
I consider the view that "nothing is real" as being false.
A refutation of the view that "nothing is real" is that consciousness is observably real in the ability to understand "real or unreal". Mental suffering may be verified as real by observing that it exists in reality as what it is deemed to be.
Did the Buddha ever refute the view of "extreme metaphysical nihilism" i.e. a view that "nothing is real"?

As the answers below indicate the idea from Mahayana may be stated as 'nothing really exists'. This means that existence is reducible to the Real, which is what 'emptiness' and the voidness of phenomena is all about. It would be impossible for nothing at all to be real.

The Lump of Foam Sutta  states:

Form is like a lump of foam,
  Feeling like a water bubble;
  Perception is like a mirage,
  Volitions like a plantain trunk,
  And consciousness like an illusion,
  So explained the Kinsman of the Sun.
“However one may ponder it.
  And carefully investigate it,
  It appears but hollow and void
  When one views it carefully.

Some people use this sutta to claim that nothing is real. However, the commentaries state that this refers to the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) being empty of a self. That's consistent with the Empty Sutta. The sutta also implies that the five aggregates are impermanent, conditioned and changing.
From Piya Tan's commentary on this sutta, for which he refers to other sources also:

2.1.1 Just as a lump of froth is unsubstantial, so too form is
  unsubstantial due to its lack of any abiding entity, permanent
  substance or self-essence. The froth cannot be used to make such
  physical things as  a bowl or a saucer, but it merely breaks up.  Even
  so, form cannot be taken as permanent or lasting, or as “I” or as
  “mine.” It is merely a lump of froth, impermanent, unsatisfactory, not
  self and foul.
2.1.4 But a lump of froth ever breaks up as soon as it has arisen, and even if it lasts for a while, on reaching the sea, it always breaks
  up. Even so, this body is continually breaking up and changing, but
  breaks up finally within a century, and after death, it disintegrates
  into tiny fragments.

Commentary on the other metaphors can be read from the link.
This means that the self is ultimately an illusion, and an emergent phenomena. The self as a standalone independent core of a being, is unreal. But other things like trees and chairs are not unreal, despite being conditioned, compounded and impermanent.
Nagarjuna taught in his Madhyamaka (Mahayana) philosophy that not just the self, rather, all things are empty of inherent essence. Some people claim this means nothing is real. However this and the concept of papanca in Theravada actually means that things don't exist the way we think they do, not that they don't exist or are unreal.
For e.g. we look at something and objectify it as cooked meat and classify it as delicious food. To a vegan, it may be repulsive. To a honey bee, it's just a lump of dirt because that's not its food.
This means that the cooked meat dish exists but not like how we imagine it to be. How we imagine it to be, is relative to our self. This is how we objectify and classify everything in the world according to our self bias - how is something related to me? It is this inherent essence that is unreal.
Another view from Mahayana Buddhism comes from Thich Nhat Hanh's essay The Fullness of Emptiness. According to this, all things like trees are not independent. They depend on other things. They are made up of things. They are connected to other things. They are constantly changing and not permanent. This is one way to say that it is empty of inherent essence. Not that it's unreal. That means there's no standalone independent object.

+1 however, "Form is like a lump of foam ... And consciousness like an illusion" means something more subtle and interesting, much more deep than just "empty of self". It means that these things are "virtual" (in the original sense of the word) - they emerge from interaction and only exist as interaction, they only seem solid "from inside" but in actuality they are like sleight of hand.

Phena Sutta does not really say "nothing is real". Also, the sutta is not about "empty of self". You should link the commentary to substantiate this answer. thanks

I have linked Piya Tan's commentary. It's basically saying that the five aggregates are not self and impermanent.

In this answer you are equating the terms "real" and "exists" as if they are synonyms. ie., that if one says "nothing is real" it is equivalent to saying "nothing exists." However, the two are not synonyms. In our system, "real" is defined as something that exists AND that it appears the way it actually exists. In other words, the appearance is non-deceptive. This allows us to claim that dreams and illusions exist, but are not real. And of course, this is obviously true. The only real thing (again, it exists and appears in a non-deceptive way) is emptiness itself.

IOW, that is what unreal means (as you say above), "things don't exist the way we think they do" and canonical examples that are obvious to see are dreams and illusions. A slightly harder example - but one I am sure you see - is that of a chair. Chairs don't exist in the way that they appear. They don't exist in the way we think they do. Chairs are unreal. :)

@YesheTenley No. The chair, as your mental object, is unreal. That's papanca.

But the chair that is not my mental object is real??!!

@YesheTenley Please try knocking your head on a wall and let me know if it's real or not. haha..

LOL Very good! Reminds me of the story about when the Tibetan master met the Zen master. The Zen master holds up an Orange and asks very forcefully, “What is this?” The Tibetan master is silent for several minutes. The Zen master repeats his question even more forcefully. The Tibetan master silently whispers to his translator, “What is his problem?? Has he never seen an Orange before?”

Abhidharma deals with ultimate realities. Buddha rejected Nihilism (natthikavāda).
The ultimate realities of the world are hidden from us due to our lack of concentration to see clearly and the wisdom to realise things as they are.
Vipassanā helps one see things as they are. Hence there is no view as "nothing is real". For an untrained mind things are not what they seem, but though the 3 fold training you can see things as they are.

The translation "nihilism" when found in Buddhism merely refers to a denial of or disbelief in the efficacy of kamma, the denial of morality and the denial of causality. The words for this in Pali are natthikavāda, akiriyavāda and ahetukavāda. Refer to MN 60. In other words, there appears to be no term translated as "nihilism" in Buddhism that refers to "nothing is real".

Yes, householder Angus, and interested,
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
it's one of the three fatal wrong views:

’When the self that is possessed of form, made of the four great elements,[25] engendered by mother & father, is—with the breakup of the body—annihilated, destroyed, & does not exist after death, it’s to this extent that the self is completely exterminated.’ (DN1)

leading direct to hell and being cause of no grow in Dhamma in this existence. Such views are actually very common under household-worshiping "buddhists", secular approaches, mostly developing equanimity in regard of all mind aspects, yet not aware that being firm attached to form.
See also answer on "What is the practical effect for a Buddhist whose view is materialist?" for more on this.
People with right view regard Paramatta-Dhamma relative, and ultimate in regard of Nibbana, as real.

Citta (mind), cetasika (mind-tendence) and rupa (matter) are sankhara dhammas, conditioned dhammas; they do not arise by themselves, each of them is conditioned by other phenomena.

(Worthy to note here that mind requires matter to a rise and vici-versa, and that mind is the forerunner of phenomena)
In that far: for a person with grave wrong view, it's simply his reality, and so will be the effects from it.
Those Nihilists are so "empty" that they are even not a little nervous that all the bad actions done, holding those views, will fall back to them.
They say repeatedly in this or other ways:

There is no such thing as alms or sacrifice or offering. There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds. A human being is built up of four elements. When he dies the earthly in him returns and relapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the wind to the air, and his faculties pass into space. The four bearers, on the bier as a fifth, take his dead body away; till they reach the burning ground, men utter forth eulogies, but there his bones are bleached, and his offerings end in ashes. It is a doctrine of fools, this talk of gifts. It is an empty lie, mere idle talk, when men say there is profit herein. Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not.

Nothing that the Buddha refuted more that the proclaimer of "nothing is real" (worthy to give into) and the generous approach of one of the Buddhas disciples here might help to grasp things not likewise wrong as those lost in their developed world of wrong views, hungry shades in the desert: The Essence of the Dhamma
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but for use in doing merits toward liberation from the wheel here)

He did refute it, but only on the basis of the unskillfulness of following such views. In AN 10:94, Vajjiya Sutta, the Buddha is accused of being a nihilist, to which Vajjiya responds that the Buddha is not a nihilist, as he does not categorically reject nor endorse certain practices, but rather rejects or endorses the skillfulness of them. The Buddha then further clarifies that what matters is whether such views lead to awakening/unbinding, and not the content per se.
Perhaps it's worth complementing the preceding with the Buddha's view on the four kinds of questions. In AN 4:42, Pañha Sutta, the Buddha explains that certain questions are not worth entertaining. It seems to me that matters about the validity of the content of nihilistic views is one of such questions to the Buddha, seeing that he did not spend time responding to the accusations with an argument based on the content per se, but rather on the skillfulness of holding the views themselves.
For even further clarification, in MN 72, Aggi-vacchagotta Sutta, the Buddha responds a series of questions on such absolute views, denying each time that he holds those positions. Even though nihilism is never explicitly addressed, his teaching in that Sutta might help to understand what he could have said on the matter: He explains that positions is something that the Tathāgata has done away with, and that what he teaches is release/unbinding. It seems to me that what he teaches is not that nothing is real or vice versa but, rather, that one can become unbound from this world by the understanding and experiencing of the arising and passing away of phenomena. In my own understanding, it should be noted that for something to pass away, it must have arisen first, so, however empty, this reality "exists" in some way or another.

I am only using the word "real" only in the sense of meaning "exists
and is not an illusion".
I am defining "extreme metaphysical nihilism" as the belief that
"nothing is real".
I do not know if the belief that "nothing is real" is (also) called
something else but if it is then please tell me.
I consider the view that "nothing is real" as being false.

If we modify your definition of real a teensy teensy tiny bit, then, in fact, the Buddha taught exactly that nothing is real. What's more, this fact is the very key to our salvation. It is precisely because nothing is real that we can awaken and be liberated from the ignorance that anything is real.
For what it's worth, the tiny modification to your definition of real is:

"real: exists and is not like an illusion"

Now, any sharp eyed observer would object with one problem with the above. Emptiness itself, is, in fact, real. That is, emptiness itself exists and it is not like an illusion. It appears exactly as how it actually exists and is non-deceptive in its appearance. This is sometimes called the "Ultimate Truth."
For more, see this answer. And for more evidence see this.


text:
Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precept?
Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precepts?
I would like to know this as I am trying to better understand the 5 precepts.

Householder might speak of the 3. of the 5 Silas, or the third of the eight, or the first of the Bhikkhus rules, if the question is really serious.

Noted. The 5 Silas. The five-precepts.

Obviously, anal sex performed by a husband on a wife would not break the literal teaching found in the 3rd precept. However, its often voyeuristic nature tends to place it within the sphere of mere lust, which is unwholesome, unless the wife genuinely rather than begrudgingly consents to the act.
In certain societies, anal sex was a common way for men to have sex with their wives and avoid pregnancy. However, many wives resented it. If a wife resented this, it would be an unwholesome act, not based in real love. But if the wife enjoyed it & was happy to do it, I suppose it would be OK (ignoring the fact the anus being something not really designed for sexual penetration).
Similarly, if committed homosexual partners sincerely wish to practise anal sex, it seems OK, I suppose (i.e., ignoring whatever risks are involved). But if anal sex is part of some domination or aggression motivation, it would not be OK.
Sex exists in nature for reproduction. However, it is acknowledged in religion that sexual desire is also something "oppressive"; that often needs to be "managed". When questions about sexual morality arise from the perspective of "sexual desire management", it becomes more complex & less straightforward. But when sex is for reproduction, sexual morals is easier to define.
Naturally, ordinary male & female relationships have children as a very strong factor that naturally binds the relationship. When people, be they homosexual or heterosexual, engage in childless relationships, this lacks the natural children factor that helps define ethics and also greatly helps maintain the relationship.
For example, when a wise man sees marriage & children are the optimal life for a woman, a wise man can easily generate compassion towards women and even lose sexual desire towards women (and thus easily become a monk or enter samadhi). In the Buddhist suttas, wise men left the household family villlage life because they could see the business of reproduction & family life was a burden & bondage. For homosexuals, however, such a perspective is lacking.

If you do any sexual act with someone under guardianship, protection or care, then it breaks the 3rd precept, regardless of the nature of the act. The party providing guardianship, protection or care can be oneself, partner, family, government, religious institution, etc.
The 1st precept is about killing and the 5th precept is taking intoxicants.

In VinayaPitaka Pathamaparajika, Pathamaparajika  precept will be perfectly completely broken when bhikkhu's penis immediately touching 3 holes, vagina, anal, and mouth.

Exposition part 2
Voluntary sexual intercourse
If a monk has the intention of association and he lets his penis enter a human female
  through the anus … through the vagina … through the mouth, he commits
  an offense entailing expulsion. If a monk has the intention of
  association and he lets his penis enter a non-human female … a female
  animal … a human hermaphrodite … a non-human hermaphrodite … an animal
  hermaphrodite through the anus … through the vagina … through the
  mouth, he commits an offense entailing expulsion. If a monk has the
  intention of association and he lets his penis enter a sexually
  nonconformist human … a sexually nonconformist spirit … a sexually
  nonconformist animal … a human male … a male spirit … a male animal
  through the anus … through the mouth, he commits an offense entailing
  expulsion.

What about for lay people?

Atthakatha specified the same for the 3th of 8 precepts. And for masturbation and the Abrahmmacariya (Acting like Brahmma), 3th of 8 precepts, brahmma can't masturbate themselves because they attained Jhana which is the opposite of masturbation and sex. So the masturbation is not allow for the 8 precepts as well, even the Atthakatha never explain to the masturbation.

It doesn't break the first precept because sperm is not a sentient being.
It doesn't break the fifth precept because anal sex is not an intoxicating substance like alcohol or recreational drugs.
It may break the third precept, but that depends on WHO the sex partner is, rather than WHAT the sex act is. You can read this answer for details.


text:
Are people who say “not my problem” delusional?
I often hear people make use of the defence “that’s not my problem”. Is this a delusion in the form of rejecting no-self and denying or not seeing interdependence? Or are these people right and should we remain equanimous about other people’s problems? Should we be careful not to assume other people want the best for us so we take more responsibility in solving our own problems?

Householder Dweezahr, interested,
first helping oneself to increase and gain, renew refuge and gratitude toward real helpers who owe all credits here:
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
yes, helping oneself in wrong ways or refuse to help someone else if able is grave delusion, yet total common in this world of people heading downwardly in high speed.
"help your self first" is what everybody would hear since child very often in Buddhist countries, yet not so many understand what it means to help oneself first.
What ever conductive for happiness in this world, the next and beyond, has/had giving as it's cause. Starting from material, to time, skills, not harming... virtue and all ones bad desires.
So it's very importand to focus on ones own happiness in right way and a person open to give what ever he/she can is a person headed toward prosperty, longlife, honour, happiness and power.
Knowing this the wise seeks after what ever good possibility to make merits.

So when the world is on fire
  with aging and death,
  one should salvage [one's wealth] by giving:
      what's given is well salvaged.
What's given bears fruit as pleasure.
  What isn't given does not:
      thieves take it away, or kings;
      it gets burnt by fire or lost.
— SN 1.41

Understanding that right, that the usual investments in what is regarded as own, is just food for the flames, one understands this warning rightly, since just kammas effects will stay yours till the point of liberation, awakening, is reached:

"Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools."

Fools, when seeing a burden, or asked to give, say off good cause: "not my problem" (and not seldom argue such with misinterpretation of the teachers advices)
Having followed from the raw giving material things, to giving happiness and freedom of fear by ones keeping of precepts, one will sooner or later surely arrive at the point where the most refined, of which needs to be given any, comes as ones last burden, having fallen to one: the five clinging aggregates, which are the root reason hindrence from liberation and becoming one who is really able to give and help: another Bhagavato, real liberal.
So it is good if you, being touched by it and able to understand, don't waist even more time in invest of what is already lost and focus on helping your self first.
(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)

It depends on context .It can be aversion if they felt the problem was hard to solve ,or maybe they had another more important problem that would've cause them more suffering if not tackled first or there maybe a valid reason,if they where blamed for not doing work, when it wasn't assigned to them in the first place then "its not my problem" ,would be a valid reply clearing out a misunderstanding.In most cases they felt attacked when asked why didn't you do this or that & had hard time seeing dependent origination .So its better to ask the question in another way .Do you know why did that happen ?,or simply stating the problem and its effects.
So from the reply you can clear out the context.

Equanimity is one of the four brahmaviharas.
I once read -- though I no longer remember where -- a suggestion that one might be an antidote to an excess of another.
For example, equanimity is good, but too much isn't good, and should by counter-balanced by or mixed with another like compassion.
Similarly compassion is good, but too much isn't -- e.g. if you can help someone then help them, if you think you can't help, or perhaps if you try to help but don't seem able to, then practice equanimity.

"help but don't seem able to", better invest the cause, Nyom Chris. Equanimity is no proper tool for grow here at all.

See "Don’t underestimate the value of equanimity for such a person" in MN 103.

For the previous case mentioned, yes.


text:
Feelings and kamma and sankhara , am I bound for the rest of my life
Are my painful feelings, that I feel now, result of my past kamma (I have for a long period felt extremely painful feelings which I couldn't stop and therefore I am helpless and trapped by them)? Or is it something I am generating by doing something with free will in the present moment, that I am still not aware of that I can stop? Because it seems like I have no way chance against painful feelings and they are controlling me. It seems like it's something there whether I like it or not, it is there autonomous. I am confused, and I am not in control over my feelings, and feeling trapped and helpless to them, because I can't solve them, they feel like a must for me with no way out. Is this kamma what Buddhism talks about, and does this mean I can't solve this? I read that Sankhara are subconscious tendencies. Is that the same as my feelings that keep me trapped? I really want clear understanding what my situation is, and what is my possibility. Will I have to experience this painful feeling the rest of my life?
Also is kamma and Sankhara the same thing that keeps me trapped? If not what is the difference? I really need to understand that.
Thank you for reading this post.

Check out similar topic discussion here: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=515968#p515666

Focus on the here and now - your current moment is no trap but choices you make.
If you are depressed, you are trapped in your memories.
If you are anxiety, you are trapped in the future.
You are NOT supposed to control your feelings, because your feelings are nothing but a result of external circumstances, which you can never really control; instead, you are supposed to observe your feelings, observe the causes of your emotions, and understand the fact that all external circumstances are naturally...impermanent.

Yes and yes, meaning both, householder,
experiencing feelings is result of past actions, tendencies to react as well and so the present actions are also reason of not wisely react on being touched by feelings.
The way to escape from acting further unwise on it is the Noble Eightfold Path.
What ever feelings arise, sometimes already skilled to see the cause and uproot it easy, will not endure, so the best is to learn to be patient and develop goodwill of those new "guests" arising.
Try to watch them arising will simply go on and do what you have to do. Try to give much attention on your breath, in and out, adjusting it in a way that you can easier go on. Get them knowing via your breath, meaning that the more you know your breath, the more this breath will introduce you to them. It confronting them direct in usual ways, nothing but conflicts would arise.
Doing so while observing the precepts firm in all you are doing will give soon more space to be no more that much so strongly determined by past actions and accumulated tendencies and more and more practical free will on skills is gained. Once knowing the "guests" from old times better and your relations to them, it will be much easier no more give much into them, no more that much a matter of what is regarded as the own.
It's much better to get things understood by doing on field as to intellectualize things, for that would not make the job to do and better understanding wouldn't be attained. When they would come in other ways, with other clothes, your ideas about them would not be fit enough to understand of what happens right now.
So the possible new resolve, volition, to get on it practical and skilled is the sankhara good to hold on, the development of the path.
Maybe another simile as support for it at the end here:
In the Shape of a Circle
(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)

Are my painful feelings, that I feel now, result of my past kamma
I think kamma is especially useful as an explanation of the present-and-future ... more so than of the past-and-present.
So "the present is the result of my past kamma" is less obviously helpful to me than, "present kamma -- i.e. present 'intentional action' -- affects the future".
Or is it something I am generating by doing something with free will in the present moment, that I am still not aware of that I can stop?
I found that a clear description of what causes "pain" are the four noble truths -- so pain or dukkha might be associated with some kind of "craving".
And there are many kinds of craving -- wanting to have things, wanting to keep things, having an idea about how things ought to be that isn't the way they are.
Another way to view that might be as "thinking too much" or as "inappropriate attention" -- I think the doctrine says, though, that the perception of something as being emotionally painful is a result of one's reaction to it and is not inherent in the thing itself.
Samana Johann's answer for example suggests you remain mindful of the breath instead, a practice called Anapanasati.
Because it seems like I have no way chance against painful feelings and they are controlling me
Buddhism might say that there isn't a "me". Sometimes there are pained feelings, sometimes there are non-pained feelings, in neither case is there a "me" which they're controlling. We might think there's a "me" but that "view" of "me" is likely just another clinging-to-an-idea of how-things-ought-to-be and therefore just another source of unhappiness (when the temporary present doesn't match the non-real ideal).
I read that Sankhara are subconscious tendencies. Is that the same as my feelings that keep me trapped?
There are a lot of different words in Buddhism. Some of them have broad meanings (more than one meaning), and of course different words are related.
The most thorough explanation of "sankhara" that I know is, Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?
Whereas "feelings" are one of the "five aggregates" i.e. skandhas.
Feelings (i.e. vedana) also appear in the description of the 12 nidanas.
And the word for "painfulness" might be dukkha.
Another word for "underlying tendency" might be anusaya.
The sense of feeling trapped might be a result of identifying -- "I" am trapped -- which is the subject of several doctrines and several practices (including a practice of generosity, considering others, and "taking refuge").

Past Sankhara creates the current contact hence the current feeling.
Any reaction to current Sankhara creates future Sankhara which shapes your future experience.
To stop creating future experiences one should stop reacting to current experiences. One cannot escape current experiences as this is based on past experiences.
An untrained mind reacts to experiences. If this is the case you are controlled by past karma. Breaking out of this is by not reacting and not creating Sankhara. Best way to do this is taking a Vipassana course:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

Subconscious mental reaction to experiences create Sankhara.
You are trapped in the cycle in Sansara as long as you are reactive to experiences. If you train your mind through Vipassana and is unreactive then you can break out of the Sansara and future karmic experiences.


text:
What might be the impact when western monk start to think they must teach the elders?
Coming accoss such:

Would such, on even normal sociaty level, be contuctive for western people who desire odination? Is such in line with good conducts, monks would have to keep?

What does "they must teach the elders" mean? The talk appears to be for people who ask to attend.

Sri Lanka and it's Sangha, in this case, is to be seen as Elder for Western, in regard of Dhamma-Vinaya.

Also on Meta recently you advised to "carefully look at questions and answers"  and to "not act like a foolish racist". I'm not sure what "western" is doing there in the title -- isn't it proper to view him as "just 'a monk'" instead of "western"?

No, in this case not, since he (and other western) have that tendency, and the impact will be a strong billateral, and not just an idealistic, Nyom Chris. Elder is clear here, that is a conventunal distinction.

And Nyom might also miss the context this advices had been given, or does he sink it speeks about two religions here (of what is good possible the impact of such respectless action).

@Sujato could also state direct of what a monk's "beef" would be on such, if one with respect.

You seem to be very emotionally driven, @SamanaJohann. I think, you need to work on your detachment / dispassion.

"There is a question that should be answered definitively. There is a question that should be answered analytically. There is a question that should be answered with a counter-question. There is a question that should be set aside.--DN33"
Perhaps this is a question that should be set aside.

I think this question is primarily opinion-based.

@ruben2020 I think this question has "an incline". Though it's true anyone might have an opinion, perhaps a few users might have an answer from personal experience (i.e. "based on something that happened to you personally", though I could see their choosing not to. I guess this is a genuine question too, to the extent that it's one aspect of a cluster of topics which seems to be a source of repeated trouble for the OP.

Speaking here as a Westerner. OyaMist suggests that this is a question that should be put aside. That person's (thatza haha) question should be put aside would require that the motive be known, for as a neutral question, it is a reasonable one and should be given a qualified answer.
The situation is this: The Dhamma is, in its initial steps (generosity, ethical conduct, self-discipline, mental development) very much in agreement with most people's idea of what is good. This leads the beginner to immediately assume he understands the system as a whole. That stuff about rebirth and not-self and kamma, that is all just a matter of details. So we have every sort of exploitation of the Dhamma going on by self-declared arahants, pompous academics, activist/destructivist politically-minded opportunist bhikkhus and blind fools and when they presume, because of the success they meet with in presenting their own version of Dhamma to an ignorant public, they learn to believe they are the only one who understands. That is, in their mind, a mandate to teach even elders and without careful consideration, leading many people astray. Our savior ... or The Defender of the Dhamma.
But how is one to stop this? It comes out in all sorts of disguises such as, for example, the case of an intelligent person with a little familiarity with the Dhamma who is nevertheless illiterate in English but who attempts again and again, here, there and everywhere, to teach English-speakers one and all (including elders) by way of asking loaded, sloppily worded questions with a subtle scent of 'I know better than you'. A case of astounding lack of self-awareness and hasty/careless disregard for his readers that would in most cases, where there was fear of blame and sense of shame, result in keeping quiet and getting on with one's studies. We need to understand motive. A case of high anxiety to teach reflecting a basic misunderstanding of the idea of letting go? A case of fear at one's destiny being over-compensated for by a desperate effort to create some good kamma? Pointing out what is actually happening to such a one and the effect he is having on others has little chance of breaking through.
But do we put the question aside because of that? Experience will tell one that when the Dhamma is taught correctly, it sticks. It penetrates through to the heart and remains. It may not show up in behavior change immediately, but sooner or later it will trigger search-the-truth and trial-and-error and evaluation and trust and calm and impassivity and serenity and detachment and liberation and knowledge and vision of liberation. The Buddha does not get upset when his students do not immediately understand. So compassion would dictate some attempt to deal with the question. Modern psychology would say a person of such a sort was 'crying out for help.' Do you make no effort?
As to the question, it is easily answered, not so easily put into practice. One who knows and sees Dhamma should, if there is a teaching opportunity, teach those who do not know and see Dhamma if there is any possibility that the person or persons can be brought from the dark to the light. Even if it means going to a lot of trouble and unpleasantness.
Some links to further study of this issue:

Something for Teachers

MN 137: Salayatanavibhanga Suttaɱ

The Satisfaction of Teaching
In the case of the first case, the teacher teaches Dhamma and the students neither pay attention nor learn. In this case the teacher is neither delighted nor disappointed but is satisfied simply to teach Dhamma.

MN 103

The right time to teach
The Fourth Case:

If there will be grief and aggravation for myself;
And there will be grief and aggravation for the other;
Because the other is by nature angry, temperamental, touchy and resentful of instruction;
And is slow witted and hard to convince;
But I have the skill to raise him from a low path to a high one;
It is proper to speak, because my aggravation and his aggravation is a small thing compared to the importance of him being brought from a low path to a high one.

Sadhu. Thats at large a very thought full and self-critical answer, seemingly of someone who has won certain battles in himself already.

...and maybe one thing missing: a disciple would even have the duty to guides ones teacher, out of gratitude, back on the trace. For those how like to think that ill-will stands behind blame, may they think so. Nobody could do it possible if not near related, once one has fallen from the good path.

The enlarged font was because of underlines (i.e. "-----") in the text -- that's interpreted as a header. If you wanted a "horizontal rule" (as a separator) instead of an underlined "header", then insert an empty line to separate the line with hyphens from the line of text above it (but instead I reformatted as a list, also made hyperlinks i.e like this [for example](http://example.com), and used > to indicate a block quote).

Something, householder Mike Olds, as it came to mind again: from experiances, language does never realm be a matter in regard of essence. In regard of simply accumulating knowledge, and interest after such, it does, of cause. Even nationality plays a big matter if on conventional level and that is the most risky matter in this case, next to conventions in regard of seniority on this level. My person assumes that soon it will be nearly impossible for foreigners to ordain and learn intensively in the traditional countries.


text:
In what realm did archaic humans live? Is it manussa (human) realm or tiracchāna (animal) realm?
I think the interesting part is to first classify archaic humans, as a manussa or a tiracchāna?
Is there any explanation about this? Since as far as I know, Buddhism supports the theory of evolution.

Archaic humans are still humans. Richard Dawkin said that the biggest misconception about evolution is the belief that humans evolved from apes. But the truth was that both apes and humans are 2 separate species that branched off from a common ancestor. So the first archaic human was still the first "human"

The word tiracchāna means "going crosswise or obliquely or horizontally". It probably means to mentally not go beyond the instinctual existence of enslavement to instinctual desires. It appears to not have the biological meaning of having four legs. Since the theory of evolution is biological, it is unrelated to Buddhism, which is psychological.
People who are "territorial", engage in unthoughtful breeding or reproduction, who are ruled by their emotions & instinctual drives, who cannot discern the future consequences of their actions, etc, are tiracchāna. Their life goes "crosswise or obliquely or horizontally" because they do not "transcend/go beyond the common level" ("vītivatto puthujjanabhūmiṃ"). They don't go "upward". They go "horizontally".
For example, the lives of four-legged animals have no significant purpose. The lives of four-legged animals is the same, generation after generation after generation. All they do is reproduce, look for food and fight to protect their territory and protect their life from predators. People who live like this are "tiracchāna" or "going horizontally".
"Tiracchāna" are the "groundlings" that "crawl" rather than "climb" ("āruyha").

28. Just as one upon the summit of a mountain beholds the groundlings (bhummaṭṭha), even so when the wise man casts away heedlessness by
  heedfulness and ascends/climbs (āruyha) the high tower of wisdom, this sorrowless sage
  beholds the sorrowing and foolish multitude.
Dhammapada

There are times when humans hold long lifespan, good conducts, beautiful and large bodies, and there are times when their lifespans are short, bad, animal-like conducts, ugly small bodies. Currently it goes foward the decaying line again. Lifespan, bodies, without much taken support, is already very short and degenerated. So the age of going into relationship.
(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)


text:
Will I break the eight precepts if I listen to nature sounds considered as music?
During uposatha days, I'm getting a little confused with the interpretation of the seventh precept of eight precepts.
Is it possible for me to listen to nature sounds without any musical instruments' sounds? Even if they’re considered as 'music'?
Also, is there any text (from aṭṭhakathā or ṭīkā) explaining this precept? It would be great and very helpful.
Thank you in advance.

What is prohibited is the sounds (music) disturb your meditation and increase your attachment aversion and ignorance. You are allowed to substitute unwholesome sounds with wholesome sounds.
For instance, you can listen to Pirith chanting or watch Dhamma video.

Householder Alfa Renaldo Aluska, interested,
one is precept, one is kamma. Better always consider kamma while keeping precept anyway. Of course if one would delight on birds tweets... animals in the forest... such is not different to listen to music as it would be not different to delight in watching animals acts from attending shows. What ever entertains the mind in akusala way should be avoided to rejoice on it.
Some advices are found here, on how to grow into observing: How to come to be able to observe precepts?
(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)