text:
How can you use Q&A to gain good Karma and also aid to realize liberation
How can you use Q&A to:

effectively and efficiently create good Karma, and
also use it as an aid to reach the final Buddhist goal

Also what Suttas and literature, cover these topics?

Just avoid getting attached to points and reputation! Lol. That was just a joke :)  I think by providing good answers you are helping others therefore creating good Kamma! "The gift of Dhamma excels all other gifts"

too broad, too opinion based IMO.

Not really broad as I don't expect too many places where the Buddha discussed something along these lines. At most a few Suttas at the most.

Oh so you mean Buddhist perspective on questions and answers in general, not just StackExchange Q&A.

Yes. With the Karmic and liberation implementations of Q&A.

How can you use Q&A to gain good Karma and also aid to realize liberation?
By reflecting on a few principles when asking & answering:
Asking & Answering
Notice in what category does the question lie in:

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There
  are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly
  yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with
  an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
  There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
  There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways
  of answering questions."
-AN 4.42, Questions

And if the answers given are appropriate to that kind of question:

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a
  person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a
  person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a
  question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical
  (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer,
  doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a
  counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put
  aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with.
  But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to
  a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer
  to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question
  to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question
  deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person
  fit to talk with.
-AN 3.67, Topics for Discussion (I recommend reading the entire discourse since it has additional valuable advice. You might also want to read Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation)

Notice that not all questions deserve an answer since they are off-topic or have implicit assumptions which makes them so. Here's an article regarding this kind of questions which I think is worth reading.
Asking
When asking, be aware of the motive behind your question:

Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so
  from any one of five motivations. Which five?
"One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
  asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
  greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
  question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
  with this thought, 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
  good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
"All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these
  five motivations. And as for me, when I ask a question of another,
  it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
  good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
-AN 5.165, On Asking Questions

For a broader and more in-depth understanding of this topic, I recommend reading the related discourses which are mentioned at the end of the discourses linked above and a brilliant book written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu named Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught. It has many examples of Q&A's that fit the above categories.

Well said indeed. Good answer.

One thing you can add is the Karmic and liberation angle for completeness. This was what I was looking for. Nevertheless a very good answer.

Keep this accepted for the time. But would be great to have the karma and liberation angle.

I think there is no such explicit relationship in the discourses. However, one can understand that by knowing the motivations & the categories of questions, one will be communicating more effectively or, in other words, "making good karma". One can avoid a lot of confusion and misunderstanding by being clear on the motivation, what kind of topics are worth discussing and with whom. These kind of distinctions really help one avoid unskillful speech. The above discourse, AN 3.67, is very rich in these kind of distinctions. One can definitely see the karma aspect of it there.

Many be you can merge this information also. Also Ven. Thanisaro has written a book called Karma in Questions. I have not read it or looked at the content. Perhaps this might have some additional information?

What is the name / title of the referenced Sutta in your comment?

I've read it a long time ago. It's an older book (2002) with many essays. He mentions some of those essays in the book I mentioned above. It seems that Skill in Questions is a more mature and organized book. I think the content may overlap, but I'm not sure. If you want to read that booklet and add an answer with what you find in it, feel free.

Maybe the book I mentioned might not have much though the title suggested some karmic connection.

Just saw your newer comment.


text:
What, besides karma, determines the future?
Since karma isn't the only thing that determines what happens to you, what are the other aspects?
I remember hearing a dharma talk where someone explained that there were like eight things that determined what happened to you and that karma was only one. Is there a sutta referencing this and what are those other things?

Since karma isn't the only thing that determines what happens to you what are the other aspects? Is there a sutta referencing this?
Yes, the following discourse is what you are looking for:

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling near Rajagaha in the
  Bamboo Grove Monastery, the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There
  Moliyasivaka the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
  exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly
  greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there,
  he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, there are some brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of this doctrine, this view: Whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before. Now what does Master Gotama
  say to that?"
[The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on
  bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile.
  Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So
  any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that
  whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
  — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
  the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
  wrong."
"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."
When this was said, Moliyasivaka the wanderer said to the Blessed One:
  "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright
  what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way
  to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those
  with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One —
  through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the
  Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks.
  May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for
  refuge from this day forward, for life."
-SN 36.21, To Sivaka

Thanks this is great,  can anyone expound on what is meant by those references to bile, phlegm etc. Is it going back to those Niyama Dhamma's

The way I understand it is that, the feelings you feel are not only due to previous moral actions but to other circumstances also. When you have some kind of disease for instance, the unpleasant feelings that arise are not due to past actions but due to the illness itself.

There are five "niyama dhamma". Kamma (karma) is only one out the five.

Utu niyaama (utu stands for seasons/weather) - As applied it means if a person dies from a natural disaster it is not purely due to karma - but it is due to the nature/ seasons. Things that are brought about as results of seasons and weather are not due to karma.
Beeja nyaama (beeja stands for seeds) - As applied seeds of a kind of plant species can produce that kind of trees. If your parents are black in color, you are going to be black, like that. Among humans or animals if karma is very powerful karma can override this to a certain level.
Kamma nyaama - What you receive due to good and bad you have done in this life and previus lives.
dhamma nyaama - This explains that growing old and things are not due to karma.
chitta nyaama (chiththa stands for mind) - thing that happen due to the way you think.

"Nigantanathaputta" who lived in Lord Buddha's time explained his theories only based on karma. As everything is 100 percent karma.
Buddhism does not say everything is due to karma. It describes karma and let people do good and to avoid bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama

Cosmic order is decided by the 5 Niyama Dhammas. All this together are the driving force behind the universe in which Karma is just one factor.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a moral aspect to financial debt in Buddhism?
If I recall correctly I've heard that one can not be ordained if one has debts. Is this just a practical rule to avoid ordaining people that run away from financial problems or does it also have moral aspect to it?
Answers from all schools are welcome.

If you have obligations like debt you might be forced to disrobe. You will not be able to do what you set out to do and any debtor trying to get hold of you will be doing bad karma.
Also you cannot practice properly as you will be afraid of debtors getting hold of you.
You and the Sanga will get a bad name due to your not fulfilling your obligation. This has a karmic implication towards people who might bad mouth the monk and the order.
This can be extended to other obligations also.
Regarding being disfigured or disabled it is the latter reasons. Also you need all your faculties in good condition to effectively do Vipassana.

It seems like it could be both.
Is running away from your debts wholesome? Is it wholesome to not pay debts to somebody when you know you should? Is it unwholesome to put aside ordination until your debts are paid off?
What does it mean for food to be wholesome? It means healthy, beneficial food. Wholesome actions are healthy for the mind and beneficial towards all beings. That's the "moral" aspect of Buddhism, and it really isn't based in somebody's personal view of good or bad, it's based on cause and effect. What would be the effects of running away from debt? What would the gratifications and dangers be?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.013.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.045.than.html

It's all ganu -denu (give and take). through out all social interaction and through out all sansara that's what we do.. even if you have to chop a tree down, don't do it without a reason. Before the reason is accomplished make sure you plant a similar seedling... then you will not be in debt. Slowly paying off your debts is a good plan...because you have not lost sight of the intention to pay. Have you considered what made the Card companies offer you the loan in the first place? Perhaps there was a collective kamma on their part towards assisting you...! Out of so many thousands that applied they chose you... for what reason? Probably they owe you more than you know...! and you die tomorrow without paying .... that could be due to them not paying you off in time for services rendered...in the past. The karma - vipaka subject is NEVER - a linear - one to one relationship. Many previous factors - bring many future results. It is always a very complex issue. Although the Buddha was the only teacher who explained this subject with maximum clarification, he also mentioned that it's a "buddhagochara dhamma" - we lesser mortals can not fathom the intricacies of it's mechanism. If we try to pay off all debts we owe through out samsara.... we just multiply keep on multiplying this samsara in to a never ending cycle of "ganu-Denu". Buddha's advice was to "get-out of this cycle a.s.a.p." (because the moment you payback the loan to the Credit Card Company they will be indebted to you for honouring the commitment .... and the cycle moves on) There is no end... unless you make an effort to break it now... you and I may have spent most of our samsara as cows... (who knows?) As cows we did not have the intellect to understand the reasoning of dhamma. This time round with some luck we are born as humans, with ability to read, write, comprehend dhamma - be scared of this whole sansaric existence, reason for this existence .... and to find a way out of this existence. So do that... make it your priority goal. The credit card companies may not be able to fully pay off the debts they owe towards you .... or .... you may not be able to fully pay off the credit card company what you owe them... you just say thank you and leave the field and wish that they would find their own escape (nirvana) than creating further "ganu-denu"s with others they owe to.

Please insert line-spacing to increase readability for other users. Thank you.

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


text:
Different ways one can understand / realise the Dhamma?
I have heard in a Dhamma talk in which different ways of understanding / realising the Dhamma was discussed. One way that was mentioned was meditation. I am wondering which Suttas this has been referenced from. Up to then my understanding was Vippasana / meditation was the one and only way.
With regard to the other ways, how does the understanding / realisation happen?
This was sometime back so I cannot remember the exact content.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html
"I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."


text:
Do monks have big ups and downs in their life?
Buddhist and non Buddhist people have a lot of ups and downs in their lifes, doubts, fears, anxiety, regrets etc... we understand that as impermanence.
Do monks experience similar things of aftet joining the Sangha their lifes are pretty much "peaceful and flat"?

Good question, I'm very curious to the answers. Is this not a bit subjective though?

Take a look at Ajahn Lee's autobiography, page 16 and onward.
His practice slackens, he grows disillusioned with being a monk, and he begins an obsessive debate within himself about whether to disrobe or not:

But looking at the state of my meditation, I could see that my practice had
  grown slack. I was becoming more and more interested in worldly matters. ...
One day I went up to a hollow space at the top of the chedi and sat in
  meditation. The theme of my meditation was, 'Should I stay or should I
  disrobe?' Something inside me said, 'I'd rather disrobe.'
... 'The people in the Great Metropolis aren't deva-sons or deva-daughters or
  anything. They're people and I'm a person, so why can't I make myself be like
  them?'
I questioned myself back and forth like this for several days running until I
  finally decided to call a halt. If I was going to disrobe, I'd have to make
  preparations. Other people, before disrobing, got prepared by having clothes
  made and so forth, but I was going to do it differently. I was going to leave
  the monkhood in my mind first to see what it would be like.
So late in the quiet of a moonlit night, I climbed up to sit inside the chedi
  and asked myself, 'If I disrobe, what will I do?' I came up with the following
  story.

If I disrobe, I'll have to apply for a job as a clerk in the Phen Phaag Snuff and
    Stomach Medicine Company. I had a friend who had disrobed and gotten a job
    there, earning 20 baht a month, so it made sense for me to apply for a job there too.
    I'd set my mind on being honest and hard-working so that my employer would be
    satisfied with my work. I was determined that wherever I lived, I'd have to act in
    such a way that the people I lived with would think highly of me.
As it turned out, the drug company finally hired me at 20 baht a month, the
    same salary as my friend. I made up my mind to budget my salary so as to have
    money left over at the end of each month, so I rented a room in the flats owned by
    Phraya Phakdi in the PratuuNam (Watergate) section of town. The rent was four
    baht a month. Water, electricity, clothing, and food would add up to another eleven
    baht, leaving me with an extra five baht at the end of each month. ...

I won't paste it all, as this goes on and on for several pages in insane detail as he imagined what might happen if he disrobed. I think the amount of detail is indicative of how much he wanted to disrobe right then and return to lay life.
But he concludes:

Finally I decided to call a halt. My wife wasn't what I had hoped for, my earnings
  weren't what I had hoped for, my children weren't what I had hoped for, so I left my
  wife, was reordained and returned to the contemplative life.

Priceless answer, +1

Wish you could share the entire part of the story. This is brilliant. Thank you

Monks are humans too. They experience the same ups and downs in terms of how meditation practice goes. Also any emotional upheavals. But conditions are more suitable for serious practice.
Since abandoned worldly affairs the chances of stress from these sources (responsibility, obligations, need to earn or work) are not there.
Since you don't own much stress from ownership of property doesn't happen.
Since your influence on the world (power, positions) has been abandoned stress from these areas don't arrise.
Since you have abandoned class, cast, clan, relatives, friends, family, etc.  any distractions from these sources are eliminated.

Mind you I am a lay person though I added the above answer.

Of course! You don't liberate yourself from suffering just by ordaining.
Whether or not they have big ups and downs depends on conditions and what you mean by ups and downs. Some monks get really down when they aren't enlightened, and really up when they experience peace.
The only one who is free from ups and downs is one who is free from dukkha. :)

Could we not just ask ourselves, "do we have ups and downs in our lives. If so, then is this not a sign that Buddhism does not strip you of humanhood, but teaches you to assume a more mindful perspective.
a more extensive study can be found here
http://viewonbuddhism.org/depression.html

Assuming that monks try to progress in meditation one can assume that from that alone a lot of ups and downs will get created. Seems also to depend on the specific lineage, see e.g. Mahasi vs PaAuk-developments, and personal predispositions.
I personally met a Thai monk in a Chiang Mai meditation place who was really in a permanently dark mood with super high reactivity to the extend that it seemed a parody with a comical aspect while appearing truly desperate. He was charged with attending to the foreign meditators and being familiar with such states I liked him somehow for that ('...this is our [meditation center] dog here. Its the only friend I have. Good dog...'). It was a very interesting basic meditation instruction he delivered. Hope he is out of that now and got a different chore too.
Then also, voluntary disrobing is not uncommon, if that counts as a crisis.

You can find many more stories online.
Ajahn Brahm sometimes spoke on his YouTube talks about junior monks (including him) being mistreated by an elder monk in Thailand when it came to alms food (please see this answer for details), and he also spoke about his experience with hospitalization due to malaria where his teacher Ajahn Chah visited him and gave a teaching, and at another time, diarrhea.
He also spoke once about misplacing some object (something like a screwdriver or spanner or hammer) and forgetting about it, then reprimanding his subordinate monks as the abbot, for not returning things to their proper place. But later he discovered that it was his own fault.
He also spoke briefly about his euphoric meditation experiences although as a monk, he cannot share his spiritual achievements in detail with lay persons.
His teacher Ajahn Chah was unable to walk and talk in his old age due to chronic non-communicable diseases, if I'm not mistaken.
His predecessor in the role of the abbot of the Bodhinyana Monastery, Ajahn Jagaro, disrobed to marry a woman he fell in love with.

Evryperson can take things to be a part of their life or they can just ignore it. It depends how attached a person is to a certain object,person. More a person meditate,less atached they get and hence there is less waries.

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


text:
Are monks allowed to travel during the rain retreat?
AFAIK, monks are not allowed to be away from their monasteries for more than 3 days during the rain season. But a monk I know had to travel out of the country due to some personal matter during this period for more than three days.
So I'm curious to know whether there are specific situations in Vinaya where the monks are allowed to break this rule?
If so, are they capable of receiving the Kathina robes?

It's seven days and only if there is a reason, in a specific (but long) list of potential reasons, mostly pertaining to Buddhist practice. The only true exception I can think of to the rule is the case of obstacles to keeping the rains. As Thanissaro explains:

Mv.III.9.1–Mv.III.11.13 gives a long list of valid obstacles, which Pv.VI.4 divides into
  four sorts: dangers to life, dangers to the holy life, a threatened split in the Community,
  and an actual split in the Community.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2.pdf


text:
Difference between neutral Karma and no Karma
I've read an article that mentioned something like neutral Karma, and it seems it is no more/less than no Karma. Does anything differentiate neutral Karma from no Karma?

Was the article talking about using good Kamma to compensate for bad Kamma? That could be seen as neutral Kamma per haps...

No, it especially pointed out the 'three' different kinds of Kamma, and neutral Kamma was generated from either unintentional actions or actions without moral intention.

@JordyvanEkelen I don't know which article you are referring to but maybe the following discourse can answer the question: AN 4.235. If not, maybe both links at the end of it can answer.

Thanks,  it's in a (physical) book about Buddhism that I am currently reading, not in English by the way, but it clearly mentions three types of Karma while that link you gave me says there are four types, It wasn't the only notable thing :/

This link says however: "Traditionally we divide karma into three varieties related to the amount of time that is required for the effects of these actions to manifest themselves."

It's just a different way of classifying. Instead of the type of results it brings, it's divided by the length of time it takes to ripen. In regards to the type of results, it seems they don't mention the mixed & neither types and mention only wholesome and unwholesome. It's just a simpler way of classifying. The most detailed seems to be the four type explanation.

In Tibetan Buddhism, there is neutral, or indeterminate, action (=karma) which is defined as action the effects of which will never ripen as experience -- such as e.g. unintentional action that has no observable effect.
Does anything differentiate such neutral Karma from no Karma?
First, we need to remember that "karma" means "action", not its unmanifested effect. Traditionally, experienced effect of an action is compared with "fruit". We say that action "ripens" or "fruits". The action whose results are yet to be experienced is called "unripened" action, or "action that is yet to fruit" etc. When we substitute "action" for the special term "karma", we get "karma that is yet to fruit". To use the word "karma" to refer to its unmanifested effect is technically incorrect.
To clarify, in the phrase "neutral karma" -- the word "karma" should be understood in its correct sense of "action".
Second, when we talk about "fruit" of action in context of Buddhism, we mean an experience of the effects of the action. We should be very careful here and avoid any kind of materialistic bias. We are not talking about so-called "objective" effects of an action, but only how these effects are to ripen as (subjective) experience. So even though action has an effect, if this effect is not to be experienced at all, the concept of good or bad "fruit" does not apply. When this is the case, we don't speak of "good karma" or "bad karma", even though karma (action!) has clearly been performed.
Armed with the above we can now understand, that when we say "neutral", or indeterminate, karma -- we mean an action that is never to ripen as experience. This means such action that neither has "external" effects that will ever ripen as experience, nor shapes the mind of the performer in such way that will ever ripen as experience.
To tie this back to your question, your intuition was correct, indeterminate or neutral action is very similar to NO action, except technically an action has been performed. It is just that this action is never to fruit as someone's experience.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as neutral karma. As you rightly surmise, it would be the same as non-karma. This is because karma in Buddhism refers to ethical intention, not the act itself:

cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi. cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti — kāyena vācāya manasā.
It is intention, bhikkhus, that I say is karma. Having intended, one performs karma, by body, speech, or mind.
(AN 6.63)

In Theravada Buddhism, consciousness without ethical intention is called "avyakata" or "indeterminate", and is "karmically neutral", which is not the same as being "neutral karma", a term that doesn't make much sense from a Buddhist point of view.

avyākata
lit. 'indeterminate' - i.e. neither determined as karmically 'wholesome' nor as 'unwholesome' - are the karmically neutral, i.e. amoral, states of consciousness and mental factors.
They are either mere karma-results (vipāka, q.v.), as e.g. all the sense perceptions and the mental factors associated therewith, or they are karmically independent functions (kiriya-citta, q.v.), i.e. neither karmic nor karma-resultant.
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/avyaakata.htm

In Abhidhamma there are 3 kinds of kamma. To my limited understanding it goes like: mundane unwholesome karma, mundane wholesome karma, and supramundane wholesome karma. It's supramundane wholesome karma because it is the karma of arahants. It's also called "neutral" because it has no karmic potency unlike mundane wholesome karma. I think another word for "neutral" would also be "functional".

I've never heard of this method of categorization. Do you have a source for that?

I accidentally hit enter too early!
Anyway: No, I do not have a source. I recall Bhikkhu Bodhi teaching it in a (multi-parted) lecture on abhidhamma, however it seems that the whole series was removed from youtube, so I have no way to know for sure if my memory was faulty or if it was an error on Bhikkhu Bodhi's part (which seems unlikely).
But looking at "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" by Bodhi, it seems that my understanding comes from a generalization based on table 1.1 on page 28.


text:
Teaching or giving advice without mentioning the Buddha
Sometimes I see perfect situations to teach something from the Buddha and help someone with it, impermanence, worldly concerns, etc... however some people will immediately shut down and not listen if they know it was spoken by the Buddha... still I want to help.
So I try to focus on the teachings that can benefit them without saying in a explicit way it came from Buddhism (of course I do not say the teaching was mine as well, I just don't mention the source or say it is something I learned...)
Is that wrong, unethical or a cause for bad Karma? I have never thought about it!

It was never the Buddha's wish to promote himself, of course, and he never required that he be credited with the teachings he taught. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, he complains of them making him out to be their leader:

32. Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him, saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. Whosoever may think that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him, it is such a one that would have to give last instructions respecting them. But, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such idea as that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him. So what instructions should he have to give respecting the community of bhikkhus?
-- DN 16 (Vajjira, trans)

And in the Udumbarika-Sīhanāda Sutta, he expresses his intentions most eloquently:

‘But, Nigrodha, I tell you this: Let an intelligent man come to me who is sincere, honest and straightforward, and I will instruct him, I will teach him Dhamma. If he practises what he is taught, then within seven years he will attain in this life to that unequalled holy life and goal, for the sake of which young men of good family go forth from the household life into homelessness, by his own knowledge and realisation, and he will abide therein. Let alone seven years — in six years, five, four, three, two years, one year, ... seven months, six months, five, four, three, two months, one month, half a month. Let alone half a month — in seven days he can gain that goal.
23. ‘Nigrodha, you may think: “The ascetic Gotama says this in order to get disciples.” But you should not regard it like that. Let him who is your teacher remain your teacher. Or you may think: “He wants us to abandon our rules.” But you should not regard it like that. Let your rules remain as they are. Or you may think: “He wants us to abandon our way of life.” But you should not regard it like that. Let your way of life remain as it was. Or you may think: “He wants to establish us in the doing of things that according to our teaching are wrong, and are so considered among us.” But you should not regard it like that. Let those things you consider wrong continue to be so considered. Or you may think: “He wants to draw us away from things that according to our teaching are good, and are so considered among us.” But you should not regard it like that. Let whatever you consider right continue to be so considered. Nigrodha, I do not speak for any of these reasons ...
‘There are, Nigrodha, unwholesome things that have not been abandoned, tainted, conducive to rebirth, fearful, productive of painful results in the future, associated with birth, decay and death. It is for the abandonment of these things that I teach Dhamma. If you practise accordingly, these tainted things will be abandoned, and the things that make for purification will develop and grow, and you will all attain to and dwell, in this very life, by your own insight and realisation, in the fullness of perfected wisdom.’
24. At these words the wanderers sat silent and upset, their shoulders drooped, they hung their heads and sat there downcast and bewildered, so possessed were their minds by Māra. Then the Lord said: ‘Every one of these foolish men is possessed by the evil one, so that not a single one of them thinks: “Let us now follow the holy life proclaimed by the ascetic Gotama, that we may learn it — for what do seven days matter?”’
-- DN 25 (Walshe, trans)

So, certainly, there seems no need to mention the Buddha when sharing the teachings. The big proviso, though, is that it is an egregious evil to pretend that it came from another source, especially that you yourself came up with the teachings. Like plagiarism, misappropriation is a terrible thing, especially in regards to such profound teachings.

There is nothing wrong with it at all. It is an extremely wonderful thing to speak the Dhamma in any form. In the Abhaya sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html) the Buddha said he used three factors to decide what and when to say something. They are truth, benefit, and agreeableness. The Buddha would only say something if it was true and beneficial to the listener, and if it was disagreeable, he would say it only at the right time and in the most gentle way possible. Because the Buddha is the perfect example of morality and right speech, we can use these principles to guide our speech as well.
When you say this you are saying something true, beneficial, and agreeable. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, but speaking the Dhamma is actually a kind of giving. In fact according to the Buddha:

"The gift of Dhamma excels all other gifts." Dhammapada 354

Far from being a cause for bad Kamma, your action is actually a basis of great ammounts of good Kamma.


text:
Can I meditate while lying on my back?
Is lying flat on my back an acceptable meditation posture?  Why or why not?

it should be comfortable .if your posture is comfortable it's enough to meditate but should care about healthy posture too.

You can, but it's not recommended.  Many people come to meditation with the notion that it is a relaxation exercise.  With that preconception, it's no surprise that so many wonder why we just don't meditate lying down or in an arm chair.  There may be some kind of benefit to this sort of mediation.  Whatever the benefits, however, they do detract from the kind of meditation taught by the Buddha.
There is a very strong connection between the body and the mind.  The condition of one really determines the state of the other.  To meditate properly (from a Buddhist standpoint), it is very important for the body to be in an upright and invigorated position.  When we lay down or sit in a comfortable chair, it is all too easy for our minds to go slack and lazy.  These sorts of positions effect our concentration and makes it all too easy to fall into sloth and torpor.  You don't want that.  To hold the body upright is to hold the mind upright.  What you want is a state where you are as awake (from a physiological standpoint) as you are going to get.  Discomfort, even a little pain (note - little!), is very conducive to raising your attention and applying it on the meditation object.

Yes but it's easier to fall asleep that way. The four official  positions are: Sitting, walking, laying  and standing but really we can meditate no matter what position we are in.
   When we set our bodies in one of these four positions, away from noise and distractions it is like we are making a little laboratory of our mind and bodies or a little retreat so to speak but when we are off working, eating, playing, jogging or  whatever, we don't  have to stop and get into one of the official four positions when we remember to meditate, we only need to see things as they are.

One can meditate in any posture, but meditating lying down can be challenging because it is easy to fall asleep. Andrea Fella sometimes has to meditate lying down due to back pain while sitting; to keep from falling asleep, she holds one arm up in the air.

For the anaapanasathi bhawana "meditation that involves concentrating on inhaling and exhaling" requires sitting posture.

Only very experienced meditators can meditate lying down without visiting the sleep world.
Any upright comfortable postion is good. If sleepy, imagine breathing in energy.
Have a great week.


text:
What dietary practices are most helpful for reaching enlightenment?
Gandhi, a Hindu ascetic, was adamant that the spiritual well being of a person was not disconnected from one's diet.  He said "The body was never meant to be treated as a refuse bin, holding all the foods that the palate demands."  Do the different sects of Buddhism have recommended dietary regimens?  If so, what are they?

in Zen, the Zazen Yojinki says you should eat two-thirds of your capacity. The problem that arises is if "capacity" is defined by a moving BMR, then this requires continually eating less, an obstacle to jhāna and the Middle Way.

In some of the Suttas in which the Buddha describes the gradual training leading to enlightenment there is the following stock passage:

"Now, when a disciple of the noble ones is consummate in virtue in
  this way, guards the doors to his sense faculties in this way, knows
  moderation in eating in this way, is devoted to wakefulness in this
  way, is endowed with seven qualities in this way, and obtains at will
  — without trouble or difficulty — the four jhanas that constitute
  heightened awareness and a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now in this
  way, then he is called a disciple of the noble ones who follows the
  practice for one in training, whose eggs are unspoiled, who is capable
  of breaking out, capable of awakening, capable of attaining the
  supreme rest from the yoke."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html)
This is explained in other places like so:

"And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case
  where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not
  playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for
  beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this
  body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life,
  thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new
  feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless,
  & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html)
As for Monks in the Theravada school, they only eat a single meal a day and do it before noon (although they are allowed to divide that meal into portions and have rice gruel before almsround). This kind of practice is also part of the 8 precepts that laypeople sometimes voluntarily undergo. The Buddha described the benefits of this practice here:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was wandering on a
  tour of Kasi with a large community of monks. There he addressed the
  monks: "I abstain from the night-time meal.[1] As I am abstaining from
  the night-time meal, I sense next-to-no illness, next-to-no
  affliction, lightness, strength, & a comfortable abiding. Come now.
  You too abstain from the night-time meal. As you are abstaining from
  the night-time meal, you, too, will sense next-to-no illness,
  next-to-no affliction, lightness, strength, & a comfortable abiding."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.070.than.html)
As can be seen, it isn't so much what you eat as how you relate to eating. If you eat with the attitude of caring for your health rather than for sheer pleasure, that will support your practice. Because this teaching is aimed at monks however, it is not required for a layperson to renounce eating food for the purpose of pleasure. It is only a recommended practice for laypeople.
On the subject of eating meat, the Buddha laid down three restrictions. In the Jivaka Sutta the Buddha said:

"Jeevaka, those who say, that living things are killed on account of
  the recluse Gotama, and he partakes that knowing, because it was
  killed on account of him. They are not my words, and they blame me
  falsely. Jeevaka, I say that on three instances meat should not be
  partaken, when seen, heard or when there is a doubt. I say, that on
  these three instances meat should not be partaken. I say, that meat
  could be partaken on three instances, when not seen, not heard and
  when there is no doubt about it."

(Source: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/055-jivaka-e1.html)
In this particular sutta the Buddha not only permitted meat, but rejected the idea that eating meat is inherently evil. This fits in with the Buddha's other teachings on morality that Karma goes by intention. The killing involved with meat is too far removed from the eating of it to automatically make eating meat morally wrong.
That doesn't mean that it is wrong to be a vegetarian however. If out of compassion one desires to support the welfare of animals by vegetarianism I think that is a beautiful thing. It is just something above and beyond what is morally required of a person.

Food we eat is linked to sensations we experience. So best is to choose food which doesn't give unpleasant sensations, drowsiness, etc.
Oily food leads to sleepiness. Spicy food lead to burning sensations. Meat lead to arousal.
In Buddhism unlike Hinduism there is no special dietary requirements, but having a light diet which doesn't bring up discomfort can help.
Also be mindful of sensations (taste, chewing) we experience while eating also. Something which most likely to cause attachment.

are you a vegan ?

No I am not a vegetarian / vegan.

As far as dietary guidelines for Enlightenment, I really like the "Three Gunas" model. I feel many people these days lack fundamental intuition for what constitutes good or bad energy when it comes to eating. The Three Gunas model provides a set of guidelines that people can follow until they develop an intuitive feel for healthy eating.
In their simplest form, the three gunas can be defined as:

Tamas, the abstract energy of stagnation, ignorance, stupor.
Rajas, the abstract energy of passion, aggression, impulsion.
Sattva, the abstract energy of purity.

In context of the diet, these translate to:

Tamas: food that is not fresh, or has tatty/grubby/frowsy atmosphere about it.
Rajas: Food that stimulates primitive senses with crude strong flavors.
Sattva: Simple, ascetic food.

The first category includes food that is spoiled, burned, lifeless, but also anything that was evidently cooked without much care for the quality of ingredients, processing, or the final result. Much of cheap non-veggy food falls into this category. This food is edible but you may feel dirty as you eat it or slightly sick afterwards. You'd think no one eats like this, but in my observations quite a few people have very low standards when it comes to food freshness and quality. Consuming this food lowers and slows down one's energy on all levels: mental, physical, and emotional.
The second category first and foremost includes good meat and spicy food. It also includes high-quality fast food with its exaggerated flavors appealing to a primitive taste and conducive to indulging. This food is very pleasant to eat, and at its best, gives you a lot of energy, although more often than not you may feel too excited while eating it, and too stuffed afterwards. Consuming this food feeds emotions such as anger and lust.
The third category emphasizes plain products like milk, grains, simple bread, fruits, vegetables, berries, nuts, and non-spicy herbs -- fresh or processed by boiling/steaming. (Fried vegetables, while still pretty pure, usually borderline between Sattva and Rajas.) Consuming this type of food calms down emotions and clarifies the mind, but may make you a bit too pacified to effectively function in the modern society.
As usual, there are no strict boundaries here. As with colors of the rainbow, there are some items that are used as typical exemplary models of a given category, while some fall in between. What's important, is to get a feel for the energy behind the food, and how it affects your own energy and the state of mind.
To answer your specific question, anyone seeking Enlightenment should definitely stay away from anything remotely resembling Tamas-food. I also recommend reducing consumption of Rajas, but not to the level of zero. In my experience, 80% of Sattva and 20% of Rajas gives a good balance between clarity and drive. As most advices on Enlightenment, this only applies until you reach stream-entry, at which point you will be able to see and decide on your own.

Do you have a source for these categories? Which tradition are they from?

This is from Ayurveda, a system of Hindu origins, elements of which got absorbed into Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism, along with stuff like yoga, tantra etc.

Of course it is not healthy to eat very fat meats, candies or deep fried food, but it has nothing to do with Buddhism, I am not sure about Gandhi but maybe he was refering to the amount of food (monks eat once a day) and not the quality of it.
Regarding what you should not eat, from a Theravada's perspective (Mahayana is more inclined to vegetarianism), this is the list:
You should not kill the animal.
You should not ask anyone to kill it for you. Do not eat if you suspect it was purposly killed for you.
You should not eat if you see or hear the animal being killed.
Certain meats are not allowed like human flesh, elephants etc... due to some cases in the time of the Buddha (like the lady that cut her own flesh to make a soup for a sick monk), he prohibited these types of meats, some animals used to belong to the king and should not be eaten as well.
Source: Bhante Dhammavvuddho Thero (Theravada monk) that taught me that.

I am not relying on traditional writings attributed to the Buddha, but upon knowledge of Buddhism and common sense as far as do no harm, but let me preface my comments that food by itself cannot prevent you from enlightenment.
For instance the Tibetans lived in a high polar desert barely able to grow barley and raise animals to survive eating a diet heavy in meat.
On the other hand, Buddhists in India often avoided meat because it so easily spoiled in their hot climate without refrigeration and could sicken the body.
Neither place has an exclusive on enlightenment.
If you fast forward to today, one thing one might do is consider foods that are friendly to the environment, that are not depleting forests like palm oil plantations, and do no harm to animals, eggs with range fed chickens.
Tofu, soybean curd, can often replace meat and provide a high protein diet that seems to provide a keener awareness during meditation in people that are especially sensitive to a high carbohydrate diet and cycle between highs and lows in their mood and blood sugar levels.
I think food is not a universally prescribed component of the path to awakening but varies according to geography, individual sensitivities to certain foods and local availability of food types.
Shakyamuni was reported to have rice pudding with milk and sugar. It was what he had presented to him. Later he reportedly ate spoiled meat because it was presented to him. In that acceptance there is a strong message for us about how open we can be about food.

Any food in moderation is enough only one should have it without lobha, dosa and moha. Once in Buddha time , Anagami lady who knew the other's mind, serving the monks who worked hard for enlightenment. The monks without having their food to taste, could not work hard, perceiving that the Anagami lady served according to taste and all monks got enlightened. Again in this story, the monks might come to know the lady who served food knew their mind and tried to get rid of this defilement, better concentrate on meditation and thus got enlightened. All these count. So it depends on individual so far to get moderation and only thing is concentrate on the meditation, purifying the mind, be scare of danger of Sansara and get enlightened.


text:
Anatta in Tibetan Buddhism (How can we reconcile it with the Tulku?)
Buddha taught us that Anatta, non self, is a key concept of the Dhamma, one of the 3 marks of existence. Basically we have a mind, not a soul, that differentiates from other minds by the kamma-vipaka it will experience, not by any inherent or intrinsic quality
In Tibetan Buddhism, there is this common search for the Tulku, reincarnated Lamas, such as HH Dalai Lama, but if we are all the same thing and there is no self, What is the meaning and the benefit or finding an reincarnation of someone?
This is a curiosity, not doubting the process or questioning the reasons, I'm sure there are good ones. I don't mean to be disrespectful.

Let's be clear on the meaning of the teaching of Anatta. All schools, both the Theravada school and Mahayana forms of Buddhism teach that there are two kinds of truth, conventional and ultimate. The teaching that there is no self is a teaching that applies on the ultimate level only, so on the conventional level there is a self.
In other words, even though on the ultimate level all you have is a collection of mental and physical phenomena rapidly arising and ceasing without any kind of core or permanent substrate, it still makes sense to point to point to such a particular collection and call it "Joe" for example, because there is causal continuity between these phenomena. One individuals life will affect their next life of course, with much of their qualities rolling over into the next one, so even we Theravadins have to admit that finding the rebirth of our teachers makes sense.
(Added latter)
The reason why it would make sense to find their rebirth (assuming that their rebirth would be human and that you could find them which is the only real objection in my opinion from a Theravada perspective) is that because their qualities developed in their previous life carry over, they would probably be more spiritually developed from the beginning than someone who was not the rebirth of an advanced practitioner.

Not necessarily all schools: "There's a point where the perceptions have done their work and you put them aside. ... The incorrect use is to say there is an ultimate view of reality and there are conventional views of reality and what we're trying to do is get the ultimate view which describes things as they really are. ... you hold on to it as if you could hold reality in words. But if you hold on to it with words, what are you doing with it? You're stuck with that view." -- http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/y2009/090615%20Tools%20of%20Perception.mp3

Good answer but I am not sure if this answers the above question.

@Wideshanks I don't think in that talk the Ven. Thanissaro's point was that there is no distinction between conventional and ultimate truths, but rather that when talking about ultimate truth we shouldn't grasp at how ultimate truth is formulated in words, simply seeing them as tools. In other talks I think it is clear that the Ven. Thanissaro accepts the distinction. For example, in one he says that even though ultimately there is no self, conventionally a self makes sense as a practical tool such as knowing which mouth you are supposed to put food into.

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala I've updated my answer to more clearly answer the question.

OK. Great. Also see what @Wideshanks might have to say.

Not all schools agree that"the  teaching that there is no self is a teaching that applies on the ultimate level only,". One of the differences between Svatantrika and Prasangika Madhyamaka is that the Prasangika do not recognize a self even on a conventional level. The self is empty, even conventionally according to the Prasangika view.

Yes, but Prasangika Madhyamaka does not reject self as a mere designation.

As far as anatta vs tulku, I answered this three times already: here, here and here.
As far as benefits, the idea is to have these children be raised by Enlightened masters from the very beginning. This way the entirety of the teaching, with all its subtleties is passed on from generation to generation. These people then serve as hubs, spreading the Dharma to regular people, and as "vision holders" (vidyadhara) that can pass the Dharma to the next generation.

Therefore it might be better to close this question, marking it as a Duplicate of Within Tibetan Buddhism, are the Lamas always the same “soul”?


text:
Do monks not have responsibility towards parents and family?
In this age, getting enlightened is not sought after by many as in Buddhas era. So I assume it must be harder for parents to accept such a decision. But monks who decide to ordain also have responsibility towards parents. How does that fit into ethics of Buddhas teachings?
I understand giving Dhamma to parents is one of the greatest gift one can give to a parent. Can it not be done by living with them and still maintaining lay practice (like the potter who was an anagami and looked after his parents) Why ordain?
NB: this is asked with due respect and do not wish to condone monks or people who desire to ordain. As Buddha would not have been a Buddha if he did not step out. I just want to understand ordaining in today's day and age.

Responsibility in Theravada Buddhism falls into two categories - practical and absolute. In an absolute sense, we only have two responsibilities:

“bhante, imasmiṃ sāsane kati dhurānī”ti?
"Bhante, in this religion, how many duties are there?"
“ganthadhuraṃ, vipassanādhuranti dveyeva dhurāni bhikkhū”ti.
"The duty of study and the duty of insight. These are the only two duties, bhikkhu."
-- Dhp-A 1

In a practical sense, a lay person has duties towards six groups of people:

"And how, young householder, does a noble disciple cover the six quarters?
"The following should be looked upon as the six quarters. The parents should be looked upon as the East, teachers as the South, wife and children as the West, friends and associates as the North, servants and employees as the Nadir, ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith.
-- DN 31 (Narada, trans)

These are considered practical responsibilities, because obvious practical problems arise when a lay person fails to fulfil them.
Generally speaking, a monk need concern him or herself with practical responsibilities towards fellow monastics (including teachers and preceptors) and lay disciples.
That being said, a monk may at times find him or herself in a position of needing to fulfil practical responsibilities to one's parents; if they are sick, destitute, etc. To this end, there are disciplinary exceptions across the board for taking care of one's parents, including in regards to giving medical treatment and food, visiting during the rains retreat, etc.
This would seem to suggest an obviously practical encouragement for monks to care for their parents as appropriate / necessary.

Thanks for your answer rev sir. But if parents are living a non Dhammic life isn't it the responsibility of the son/daughter to live amongst them and still maintain practice? I am not sure which outweighs which, the need for self liberation or the debt owed to parents for having given birth in this realm?

@user3743672, that debt can only be paid if one make one's parents realize the Dhamma. In other words, lead them to enlightenment. You don't have to be a lay person to do that. Take the example of the chief disciple most venerable Sariputta Thera.

@user3743672 no, I don't think it is. It is the responsibility of every individual to seek out their own enlightenment. Sometimes that involves helping others, sometimes not.

@user3743672 I don't think that giving one's parents the Dhamma necessarily means converting them into becoming practical buddhists, although that would be a good thing. The Dhamma contains many things which lead a person to goodness, and if one's parents aren't willing to convert, I think we can encourage our parents as best we can in whatever part of the Dhamma that they can accept. For example, helping your parents improve in virtue is a part of the Dhamma.

@bakmoon my intention was never to convert but only to help them gain more merits by gaining and sharing my own.

You stated the following as an unquestioned fact:

But monks who decide to ordain also have responsibility towards parents.

You tagged this modern-world so I'd like to add this to other answers: there's a modern view which says,

Parents have a responsibility towards their children
Children do not have a similar (parental) responsibility towards their parents.

This attitude (the question of what if anything are children's responsibility towards their parents) varies from country to country and from one society to the next, and one family to the next.
This (that children aren't responsible) is an lesson which is taught to children, especially when the parents are or have a problem:

If a parent is alcoholic
If the parents divorce
If there's child abuse, spousal abuse
If a parent tries to be too controlling or selfish

People are responsible for their own lives. You can choose to help, perhaps want to help but, even if you want to, your ability to help might be limited.
Children might feel guilty for their parents' problems. There are people in modern society who would tell those children that they should not feel themselves responsible for their parents' problems.
Some say you have a debt to your parents: "I bore you, I fed you, I changed your diapers, I educated you, etc."
Some say you have no debt to your parents: e.g. because your relationship with them is not a contract or because it's a contract which you couldn't choose.

This isn't a good answer because it's not specifically about monks or Buddhism, but perhaps it's worth mentioning.

It's hard to explain. I haven't reached great heights in meditation but there is a karmic debt I believe. I have the parents I do cuz there are certain paramis that need to be fixed in me.

There's a "Sutra About The Deep Kindness of Parents
And Difficulty of Repaying It", although Wikipedia says it is apocryphal. And there are supposed to be karmic benefits of taking care of parents.

I don't think the questioner meant responsibility about the bad choices our parents make, but rather one's responsibility to try to help one's parents.

As far as I know, only the first five years new monks are advised to stay away from the family as to not disturb their formative practice.
Becoming a monk does not stop one from meeting and taking care of your parents. I've heard mentioned quite a few times that Ajahn Brahm used to visit his mother. I'd listened to a talk by Ajahn Viradhammo where he mentioned how he had taken care of his sick mother for almost a decade in Canada until she passed away, which was a very touching and inspiring example. Ajahn Suchart Abhijatto who is a student of Ajahn Maha Boowa mentioned moving to Wat Yansangwaram to be closer to his family.
Sure, you can practice and inspire your parents as a layperson. But, there are obvious advantages in being a monastic. If the right community is chosen, one is surrounded by a sangha of like minded and inspiring people whose aim is Nibanna and a more laid back, natural and peaceful environment compared to urban lifestyle. Also, in your later years you can be a source of happiness for several people by giving Dhamma.
If this is not the case, it would be counter productive to join a Sangha and you are better off with lay practice. Nothing worse than a temple where people's energies are diverted in gaining power and fame rather than practicing towards the ultimate goal. So, it is very important to do your homework before ordaining.
Ultimately, this is a very personal decision to ordain or not. The most important things is to practice until Stream Winning at least. For example, Anathapindika had the same dilemma of whether to ordain or take care of his business. The Buddha was able to understand his Kamma and answered to him (paraphrase) that it is perfectly fine to be a layperson and continue to make Punna (merit).

Welcome . Glad it helped.


text:
What is Prana according to Buddhism?
According to Buddhism, does flora contain prana? Is this a cosmic energy that is set in earth, nature? Do organisms contain that energy?

In Theravada Buddhism, we call it pāṇa, which is just the Pali cognate of the Sanskrit prāṇa. The word itself just means breath, though it has connotations that come from Hinduism, regarding the concepts of life essence, soul, energy, etc. The PED gives some idea of how it is used in Buddhism:

Pāṇa [fr. pa+an, cp. Vedic prāṇa breath of life; P. apāna, etc.] living being, life, creature D iii.48, 63, 133 S i.209, 224; v.43, 227, 441 (mahā -- samudde); A i.161 ii.73, 176, 192; Sn 117, 247, 394, 704; Dh 246; DA i.69 161; KhA 26; ThA 253; PvA 9, 28, 35; VvA 72 DhA ii.19. -- pl. also pāṇāni, e. g. Sn 117; Dh 270. <-> Bdhgh's defn of pāṇa is "pāṇanatāya pāṇā; assāsapassās' āyatta -- vuttitāyā ti attho" Vism 310.
 -- âtipāta destruction of life, murder Vin i.83 (in "dasa sikkhāpadāni," see also sīla), 85, 193; D iii.68, 70, 149 182, 235; M i.361; iii.23; Sn 242; It 63; J iii.181 Pug 39 sq.; Nett 27; VbhA 383 (var. degrees of murder) DhA ii.19; iii.355; DA i.69; PvA 27.  -- âtipātin one who takes the life of a living being, destroying life D iii.82; M iii.22; S ii.167; It 92; DhA ii.19.  -- upeta possessed or endowed with life, alive [cp. BSk. prāṇopeta Divy 72, 462 etc.] S i.173; Sn 157; DA i.236  -- ghāta slaying life, killing, murder DA i.69;  -- ghātin   âtipātin DhA ii.19.  -- bhu a living being J iv.494  -- bhūta=˚bhu M iii.5; A ii.210; iii.92; iv.249 sq. J iv.498.  -- vadha=âtipāta DA i.69.  -- sama equal to or as dear as life J ii.343; Dpvs xi.26; DhA i.5.  -- hara taking away life, destructive M i.10=iii.97; S iv.206 A ii.116, 143, 153; iii.163.

In Theravada Buddhism this is as far as the concept goes, and it is only conceptual; there is no sense of an actual "spirit" or "energy" living inside of the body that can be called pāṇa; it is only the concept of a living, breathing being that is described as pāṇa.  As the Visuddhimagga explains:

Breathing things (pāṇa): so called because of their state of breathing (pāṇanatā); the meaning is, because their existence depends on in-breaths and out-breaths.
Vism. IX.54 (Nyanamoli, trans)

In Tibetan Buddhism, though, there seems to be more of a recognition of the existence of an energy flowing through the body, a "psychic wind" (Tibetan: rLung), so to speak:

Some of the different usages of the term lung include:

the psychic winds (sanskrit: prana) that travel in the internal channels, or nadi (Sanskrit) of the subtle body and are manipulated in certain Vajrayana yoga practices.
specifically the five psychic winds that are a manifestation of the Mahabhuta. These five are the lifeforce that animate the bodymind (Sanskrit: namarupa) of all sentient beings and are key to certain tantric Buddhist and Bon sadhanas and Traditional Tibetan medicine.
to the vayu and prana of ayurvedic medicine.
as a component of the term for a type of prayer flag, named after the allegorical Wind Horse (Tibet: lung ta).
a type of tantric buddhist empowerment that involves the transference of spiritual power from master to augment or refine that of the disciple through the recitation of scripture or song. This oracular transmission received aurally defines Mantrayana and Ngagpa traditions and provides them with their nomenclature.
the "reading transmission" of sutrayana texts, in which the entirety of the text is read aloud from teacher to student.

-- Wikipedia, Lung (Tibetan Buddhism)

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche devotes an entire section of his book "The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep" to the topic of prana.
In answer to your auxiliary questions, it again depends somewhat on which tradition you follow, but I think the consensus is that only sentient beings share the quality of prana, however it is understood.

While I've hardly ever heard the word "prana" used in context of Buddhism proper (only in context of Yoga), there are several concepts in some Buddhist traditions that seem to refer to the same underlying principle.
Chinese, Korean and Japanese Buddhists speak about "qi" or "ki". Tibetan Buddhists speak about "lung". Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche called it "abstract energy"...
It's kind of similar to the notion of "potential energy" in physics, but applied to the subjective realm of organic sentient beings. And it's much broader, so it includes the bodily/physical energy as well as emotional energy and even information -- in their aspect of latent potentiality.
So if you are physically sick or tired, we say your energy is low. If you are emotionally down, we also say your energy is low. And why are you emotionally low? Could be because of the physical reasons -- or could be because of the information you've exposed yourself to, recently! So, if you lack confidence, or you lack drive -- we also say your energy is low. Now, if your teacher helps you get out of depression and build self-confidence, by giving you certain information -- we say he gave you some of his energy. You now run on your teacher's energy. Then, if his advice did not produce a permanent change in you, you may again fall into depression -- and then we say you have exhausted the energy teacher gave you.
Similarly we say that coffee and tea have energy -- because of their potential ability to affect our condition. Certain plants have more energy than others. At this point we understand that there are multiple kinds of energy (tamas, rajas, sattva) -- but all these are just concepts, just ways to describe different aspects of the way the world works. None of this exists as some kind of electromagnetic field -- it is only an abstraction, just like the potential energy in physics.
If we go further along, we can see that books may also transmit energy. Not only books, but also some objects. Some places could evoke energy, right? So where does this energy come from, where does it belong, where does it originate? It is just a part of the world, passing across, interweaving, transforming continuously.
But generally speaking, this concept of energy is rooted in the experiential realm of living sentient beings. So when we speak about early morning air having lots of prana, it just means it has a certain atmosphere that affects our energy in a very specific way. So if we had, say, a computer running an AI program, even if it was equivalent to a human as far as intelligence -- it would not be able to appreciate the early morning prana, because it is not affected the same way as us by the morning mood. In this sense we could say that energy only exists inside of sentient beings.
So is energy a subjective phenomena of sentient beings, or is it objectively a part of the universe? At the end of the day, we hit the limits of what dualistic mind can explain and understand. There is no strict boundary between sentient beings and the world. There is no strict boundary between "inner" and "outer". The subjective and the objective are two sides of the same coin. The world is one continuous field of matter/energy/information, fluctuating.
I know this is not exactly scientific, but it is very difficult to speak about these things in an organized manner, because they are so touchy/feely and subjective. I hope this helps someone to overcome their doubts and discover the wonderful world of energy.

This is somewhat related to Kaya-sankara, i.e., the breath which sustains life. This might differ from what the Hindu concept as Buddhism does not have a soul concept.


text:
3 deliverance 8 liberations and stages of enlightenment
Is there any relations between 3 deliverance, attha vimokkha and stages of enlightenment?
During meditation (like anapanasati) , how does one switch to insight (into five aggregates) after gaining some concentration?

the conditionless (or signless) liberation (animitta-v.),
the desireless liberation (apanihita-v.),
the emptiness (or void) liberation (suññatā-v. ).

vimokkha

According to Classical Theravada (that is, the Pali Canon as interpreted by the Commentaries and the Visuddhimagga) the three deliverance just refer to which of the three characteristics is the most prominently contemplated the mind to attain enlightenment, and there isn't much of a practical difference.
The eight liberation are mostly an alternate way of describing the progression of samadhi. You can describe it in a lot of different ways, the Jhanas are just one way of talking about it.
You also ask how to switch to the contemplation of the five aggregates after attaining concentration, especially using anapanasati. The most general description of this is given in the Visuddhimagga:

One who wants to accomplish [insight], if, firstly, his vehicle is
  serenity, should emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhána,
  except the base consisting of neither  perception  nor
  non-perception, 3   and  he  should  discern,  according
  tocharacteristic,  function,  etc.,  the  jhána  factors  consisting
  of  applied  thought, etc., and the states associated with them, [that
  is, feeling, perception, and so on]. When he has done so, all that
  should be defined as “mentality” (náma) in the sense of bending
  (namana) 4  because of its bending on to the object.
Then, just as a man, by following a snake that he has seen in his
  house, finds its abode, so too this meditator scrutinizes that
  mentality, he seeks to find out what its occurrence is supported by
  and he sees that it is supported [588] by the matter of the heart.
  After that, he discerns as materiality the primary elements, which are
  the heart’s support, and the remaining, derived kinds of materiality
  that have the elements as their support. He defines all that as
  “materiality” (rúpa) because it is “molested” (ruppana) [by cold,
  etc.]. After that he defines in brief as “mentality-materiality”
  (náma-rúpa) the mentality that has the characteristic of “bending” and
  the materiality that has the characteristic of “being molested.”

(Visuddhimagga XVIII.3-4)
In other words, after attaining concentration, your switch your object of meditation to the mental qualities in the mind caused by such concentration. You put your attention on and observe the qualities of peace, clarity, joy, etc... and see them very clearly. After that, you turn to the body, watching and observing the physical sensations of the body such as hardness, cohesion, movement, heat, etc...
If you want detailed instructions on how to do this especially for Anapanasati, this section of Ajahn Buddhadasa's book on Anapanasati is one of the best in my opinion: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu-Anapanasati-Fourth_Tetra.pdf


text:
Can a buddhist enjoy life - what are the limitations and restrictions
I see many people telling that buddhism restricts the happiness of "gihi" (non clergy) life. What do you think? Does teaching in buddhism ask people to always think of uncertainty?

This is a very common mistake, another one also common is: "Do Buddhist don't feel anything and avoid being happy?" Like we are vulcanos (Dr Spock) or something... :)

I should note that we discourage asking "what do you think?"-type questions on this site, since the format doesn't lend itself well to discussion. We are more interested in decisive, expert (preferably source-based) answers than subjective opinions.

I enjoy my life quite a bit!  :-)

@ yuttadhammo I Agree. But I asked about teachings rather than opinions.

@konrad01 Just to clarify, Spock is a Vulcan.  Dr. Spock was a pediatrician and author of one of the best selling books of all time. ;-)

Lol, of course I was talking about the alien one, I thought he was a doctor too! Anyway, thanks for the explanation, live long and prosper!

Welcome to Buddhism.SE!
Anyone who says that is misrepresenting Buddhism completely. The primary goal in Buddhism is the attainment of true happiness. The problem, of course, is that, according to Buddhism, no thing in the universe can bring such happiness. This is what is meant by the concept of uncertainty; not that we should always think  of it, but that it is a characteristic inherent in all arisen phenomena.
The good news is that by understanding this reality, we can find true and lasting happiness because we will no longer seek out happiness in that which cannot provide it. We will no longer face disappointment when that which we think of as stable turns out to be unstable; when that which we think of as satisfying turns out to be unsatisfying; and when that which we think of as controllable turns out to be out of our control.

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
  atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.
All formations are impermanent. When one sees this with wisdom,
  thereupon becoming disenchanted with what is unsatisfying, this is the path of purification.
-- Dhp. 277

Good answer Bhante, I used to talk a lot aboud Buddhism until a friend of mine has said to me: "What is hapiness to you is not hapiness to me". Ok, I could argue with that,  explaining that his concept of hapiness was clouded by ignorance, I could have talked about the 4 noble truths etc., but I decided that is better to let people live like they want, so we pursue our hapiness, they pursue their hapiness and we will all receive the fruits of what we are working for! :)

Buddhism does not teach that one should abandon happiness. Buddhism teaches that happiness can be divided into three categories: Sensual happiness which is the least happiness, happiness based on concentration which is better, and the happiness of Nibbana, which is the supreme happiness.
Buddhism doesn't ban a lay person from sensual happiness, but teaches that people must avoid certain types of actions which are clearly harmful to ones self or others (for example, killing, stealing, adultery, lying, and taking intoxicants), and for lay people, sensuality that is not clearly destructive are permitted, although moderation is encouraged, and renouncing sensuality entirely is highly encouraged as a superior path towards the higher happiness of Nibbana.

Remember, in the sutra Samyutta Nikaya #35, the Buddha says:
What ordinary folk call happiness, the enlightened ones call dukkha.

Note 'dukkha' means suffering.
All experience, happiness and sadness, is Dukkha. Buddhist's identify with each other through their experience of 'moksha' (or 'liberation') within dukkha (which is also thought of as 'conditioned' existence itself).
As such the ordinary ones are 'deterred' from happiness (or more correctly, taught to think of it as something entriely negative), while the enlightened ones are encouraged to, strangely, also renounce it (depsite calling it 'moksha' or 'liberation'). This may seem paradoxical, but it demonstrates a repeated step-like descending process where all experience is associated with dukkha until one entirely disconnects with conditioned reality and therefore suffering.
The goal is the cessation of suffering, not the occupation of the suffering mind with happiness. This is not a moral activity, and one does not generate bad karma by seeking happiness-dukkha, though a movement away from viewing any experience at all as positive is always rewarded with 'meat' (as it is called). Renouncing the meat as positive causes a chain-reaction, though one usually begins to crave the so called meat and the chain breaks.

The goal of Buddhist is to achieve true happiness. The way to achieve this is changing your perspective and outlook of the world to be in line with reality. All the Buddhist training is geared towards this goal. Bring your outlook of the world inline with reality at the experiential level in order to be able to live happily.
The misery we create is a product of our untrained mind and us not knowing through 1st hand experience the realities of nature. So we have to:

understand the realities at the experiential level
change out outlook and thinking to be inline with the realities so misery or unhappiness does not arise


text:
Books for intermediate/advance students
Most of the books about Buddhism I can find were made for Beginners, most are very good and touch the key points, easy to find and to buy.
The problem is that after a while I started to look for more advanced books, made for people that have already studied the key principles of the Dhamma and wanna take one step further, this is very hard to find!
Anyone can indicate a book about Buddhism (suttas, Abidhamma, techniques etc.) More suitable for advance students?

Have you read the sutta pitaka?

This sort of question is challenging in an SE environment since it is broad (Buddhism is huge), highly opinion based, and prone to answers in list format. If we can edit the question into something more concrete then it can be easily reopened.

Sutta pitaka is definitly a good advise and will give me a looooot of material :)

Shopping recommendations are off-topic on almost every SE site.

What particular subject would you like to study? Just comment on this answer with a list of subjects you want to learn and I will put together a list for you and edit it in this comment.
Would you like to focus on a particular tradition within Theravada? (I'm assuming you're asking about Theravada because you are using Pali terms.)

Correct, Theravada, but currently Im reading a Mahayana book because it was the only (not for beginners) I could find :)

@konrad01 Ok, so would you like to focus on a particular tradition within Theravada such as the Ajahn Chah tradition, the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, etc... And what kind of subject matter are you looking for? Medition? Wisdom teachings? There are a lot of intermediate and advanced Theravada books that you can get for free online so you'll have to be more specific on what you want.

Send me the url of your favourite ones :)

@konrad01 I don't want to clutter the page too much. I have a lot of free books in PDF form that I can give you. I have an email address bakmoon123@gmail.com and if you send an email there I will send you some if you like.

@konrad01 (and Bakmoon) Someone created a Chat room at http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16470/dharma-books which would seems to be a good place to list and discuss dharma books!


text:
Is stream entry an unmistakeable experience?
I've heard stream entry described as a turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness. I've also read other accounts that make me think that there is something about the experience that is unmistakable. Is that true? If one were to attain stream entry would one know it without doubt. Is it such a notable experience that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else?

I have a lovely book about it, "stream entry" by dhammavuddho thero, I wish I could lend it to you hehehe :)  +1

well said ,but what is most noticeable is the there is no chattering mind just a state of equanimity with a unravelling self

Tibetan Buddhism recognizes two kinds of milestones: "experiences" and "realizations".
Experiences are all kinds of extraordinary moments one has along the way. Like the experience of non-duality: "I am what they call God, the true goal of all religions and the real meaning of love". Experiences come and go. They leave memories, but they don't stay with you in all their might. And that's probably a good thing. I don't know how I would live walking around thinking I'm God ;))
Realizations are (sudden or gradual) breakthroughs that change one's perspective in fundamental ways. Needless to say, they stay with you, although not necessarily in an explicit form, because you tend to get used to them and stop noticing. An interesting feature of realizations, they sometimes can be retrograde (like retrograde amnesia). It slowly creeps on you or dawns on you, that you have known something or have been behaving differently for a while now. It is almost like realization spreads backward in time.
By this classification, stream entry is a realization, not an experience. Because of its nature, in most cases I suspect it is a retrograde realization.
The true stream entry is unmistakable, yes -- but I don't see why someone could not just take some arbitrary experience, or even some intermediate realization, like the realization of emptiness of so-called "objects", and imagine that to be stream-entry.
What makes it unmistakable is the fact that in order to attain it, you have to run out of other options. You have to exhaust all theories, all hypotheses, all alternative routes to enlightenment. That's why you don't hesitate, because you clearly see that there is no way it could be something else.
What's funny is this nagging feeling I have, that you reading my description of it, reduces your chances of attaining it. Enlightenment is freedom from clinging (among other things), so clinging to this notion of stream-entry must be very counterproductive. This is why I'm a little leery of Theravada's sometimes excessive emphasis on bullet-point lists and precise definitions of the stages, as well as of Zen's obsession with the notion of satori. The more your mind grasps these, the further you are from the goal.

Does it mean that stream entry is easier for an unintelligent person? Such a person will generally have less hypotheses or theories about alternative routes to enlightenment.

It's not like the dumber the easier, but there is a sweet spot, I think :)

Just as a passing comment, I think it is very important not to create strong ideas about these states because then you are likely to 'aim' at the idea rather than the actual state, in fact 'aiming' is a really bad idea because you do it consciously and at an idea. The true state should be attained naturally and idea-lessly. Creating ideas of these states are a problem for those who have experienced them naturally, but even more so for those who have nothing natural to go on.

stream entry happens as a result of contemplation of teaching, right? so you should genuenily love the teaching in an intellectual sense, not just consume it because someone told you enlightenment is cool or useful. if you don't enjoy the teaching, why bother at all? that way, you don't really care about SE too much because it's the process that you enjoy anyway. this has been my experience.

When one attains stream entry, one should notice that one has no more identity view, doubt and ritual attachments. Whether one knows that it is called the state of Sotapanna or Nibbana, depends on one's knowledge of the teaching. Take a Pacceka Buddha for example. He also attains stream entry before becoming a Buddha. But he wouldn't know the state by name.

can you please explain a little about identity view? And by doubt you mean doubt in the path?

@user3743672, the term for "identity view" is "Sakkaya Ditti". It means taking the 5 aggregates as a self. More at: http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakkaya-ditthi/index.html
The word for 'doubt' is 'Vicikicca'.  It refers to sceptical doubt about the Buddha, the Teaching, the Sangha, and the training; about things past and future, and conditionality. More at: http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vicikiccha/index.html

@user3743672 Welcome!

When it comes to Stream Entry the following should happen:

You should have seen the dependent origination first hand in both direction
The lower fetters would have dropped
You should know the 4 Noble Truths 1st hand
You can see the Marks of Existence (necessary but not sufficient)

The most unmistakable of this is 1. I think when you get in and out of Pala Samapathi you can always see this happen. Even if not you would have seen the likes break with you enter your initial experience of stream entry and reconstitute themselves when you come out of it again. This is most unmistakable. 4 - you can see before stream entry at some level, 2 - if your defilements are temporarily suspended you might think you do not have the defilements, 3 - you can easily mistake theoretical knowledge with real experience. Understanding 1 will lead you to:

know dependent origination 1st hand where you can see the links breaking when you get the Pala Samapatti and reforming when you come out of it
know the 4 Noble Truths 1st hand though your understanding of dependent origination
have unshakable faith in the Triple Gem since you have seen the the results of practicing the given path has given results which you experience 1st hand
you will let go of your ego as you see this is a main source of misery and stress as each time a ego centered though happens in your mind you see the sensations are unpleasant leading to fabrications / conditioning
since you have 1st had experience on what got you there you know any other practice (rites, rituals, etc.) will not get you there

"stream entry described as a turning about in the deepest seat of
  consciousness"

Yes, it is the turning point and never fall back.

"there is something about the experience that is unmistakable. Is that
  true?"

True! The experience marked is for layman (non-Arya: four noble truth if taught just like writing in the air, for cula-sotapanna just like writing on the water surface, for sotapanna just like inscribed on the large stone slab will persist more than hundred years i.e. until throughout afterlife.)

"If one were to attain stream entry would one know it without doubt.
  Is it such a notable experience that it couldn't be mistaken for
  anything else?"

Yes! If one achieve the Nibanna with your own Khanda, no doubt on Dhamma knowing four Noble Truths at the same time.


text:
What is New Age Buddhism?
I've noticed that we have a tag on the site for New Age Buddhism which has a couple of questions associated with it (one more now I've asked this!). What is New Age Buddhism though. Can anyone give a reasonable concise definition of it, maybe point to some links for more detail and give a few teachers that follow or expound this line of Buddhism. Does it have anything that uniquely differentiates it from other forms of Buddhism. Or it is a not genuine concept at all?

This would have been better meta question, since the core topic is what a tag means.

I know more about Buddhism than new age, but I'll take a stab and listing the contrasts:
New age is radically eclectic and blends all sorts of religions and para-religious concepts. New age has a very porous boundary.  Buddhism is syncretic-- it picks up new ideas as it moves into a new cultural area, but then becomes institutionalized again an one generally can recognize what its boundaries are.
New age practices that clearly overlap with Buddhism would include meditation, belief in reincarnation, sympathy towards monism and nondualism, something akin to the 2 truths principle you see in Buddhism (that there is ordinary reality and then another layer on that).
New age Buddhism would be distinguished by all the other concepts drawn into it. For example, the Buddhist temple not far from where I live is a sort of New Age Buddhist temple, with an impressive crystal display. The temple is run by a woman who was mostly New age before she was recognized as a tulku.
Personally I think it is a useful concept/tag, it help keep straight when people are looking for answers that might involve who knows what, from UFOs to Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce or Helena Blavatsky and Auras and so on.

Can you expand on “syncretic/institutionalized “? I can think of an example like Tibetan Buddhism....is that what u mean?

Syncretism is when people take two religions and mix them, especially as one religion spreads to a new area with a pre-existing religion. What starts out as another religion (say Hinduism, Chinese folk religion, etc) becomes heterodox Buddhism and then orthodox as institutions make the new components officially part of the religion. It is slow & once complete, people assume that is the way it always was.

I think we should differentiate Buddhism from New Age movements, they may share some goals (happiness), some tools (meditation) and some teachings, however they are very different in some key aspects, usually the ones related to money, intoxocants, sexuality and "enjoying life" (generally speaking)
There are new age gurus and teachers trying to reconcile the Buddha's teachings with our modern society and other believes, some of them attract a lot of people, I do respect them, but I don't see it as "New Age Buddhism", I see it as "New Age movements with some Buddhists teachings inside".

Well said. Like the explanation.

And then there is Secular Buddhism. I wonder if the tag-generator was looking for a term to cover it. There isn't a tag for Secular Buddhism.

@LindaBlanchard There is: [tag:secular-buddhism]

A thirst to justify every misfortune anyone befalls.
You can work out the rest (if you suffer you are evil, etc.)

New Age Buddhism allows marriage. Millions converted to Buddhism in Nagpur India. It was a Buddhism as taught by B R Ambedkar. This Buddhism is soft on marriage. Only bans adultery. Buddha told his followers to leave family and meditate in forest. That was true Buddhism. These days it is very difficult to find a true Buddhist.

Good question! An interpretation, based on the Terma tradition.  New Age Buddhists accept Animated Emptiness (Primordial Buddha)  as the enlightened, unborn, unconditioned ruler presently on earth and possibly elsewhere, who knows?  Humans have yet to discover sentient life elsewhere but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist in this universe or other dimensions.   Sublime imagination first took the elemental form of a primordial Buddha  on earth( circa a quarter  to a half a million years ago ) with essential feminine aspects including several Bodhisattvas which are recognised as equal to Animated Emptiness.


text:
Is it harder to attain enlightenment without a living Buddha?
In many Buddhist stories we hear about people attaining enlightenment, stream entry and other blessings.
It seems like it is much easier to progress in the path when there is a living Buddha around, is that right? Or is it related to the way society was, more religious and devoted?

I guess it is both. On one hand, Buddha new the weaknesses of each individual and was able to recommend what type of meditation that's suitable for him. He new how much each person's five spiritual faculties were developed and provided the right recommendation. This type of knowledge that a Buddha possesses is called indriya-paro-pariya-ñāṇa. I think this is why some monks practice different kinds of meditation techniques alternatively since there's no Buddha to guide them now.
On the other hand, the people during Buddha's time have had perfected paramis onto such an extent that some of them would get enlightened by hearing just one stanza of a sutta. e.g. Bāhiya the merchant, Sariputta thero and Moggallana thero.
In Puggalapannatti of abhidhamma pitaka mentions four types of people,

Ugghatitannu - an individual who encounters a Buddha in person, and
who is capable of attaining the Holy Paths and the Holy Fruits through
the mere hearing of a short concise discourse.
Vipancitannu: an individual who encounters a Buddha in person, but
who is capable of attaining the Paths and the Fruits only when the
short discourse is expounded to him at some length.
Neyya : an individual who needs to study the sermon and the exposition, and then
to practise the provisions contained therein for 7 days to 60 years,
to attain the Paths and the Fruits during this lifetime if he tries
hard with guidance from the right teacher.
Padaparama : an individual who cannot attain the Paths and the Fruits within this
lifetime. can attain release from worldly ills in his next existence
if he dies while practising samatha or vipassana and attains rebirth
either as a human being or a deva within the present Buddha Sasana.

In Buddha's time most of them were type 1,2 and 3. So I guess Bāhiya the merchant, Sariputta thero and Moggallana thero fall under the first category.
These days unfortunately most people fall under third and fourth categories.

To dissuade one from believing that the Buddha does the enlightening, I offer two stories of Shakyamuni's close disciples.
The first is Ananda that serves Shakyamuni all his life and does not find enlightenment. This was a source of frustration to see all these people finding enlightenment and Ananda is with the Buddha around the clock and does not find enlightenment until after his death. Ananda had the principles down pat but he could not find the living buddha within.
In the flower sermon is another example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon
The Buddha gets up to give a sermon and says nothing, does nothing, just stands there, and then he raises a flower. All the people present are confused and discuss among themselves what he is saying. Then one disciple, Mahākāśyapa, gets it, awakening washes over him and he stands up. He is speechless. Mahākāśyapa can only smile.
Neither awakening was due to Shakyamuni Buddha and what he did. When the flower was ready it bloomed. No one could force it. It just happened.
The buddha consciousness within is what we awaken to. Is there anywhere we can go where that is not? I have found no such place. I have found no one or nothing that can awaken anyone. The buddha within is always shining, the clouds part and it is revealed.

The buddha's ability to teach and lead people in realising the Dhamma is unsurpassed. Also his understanding is by far the best. Definitely having your paths cross with such an individual your be a great advantage.
Having said this the Dhamma is there. You still can practice it and realise the Dhamma though it might be a bit harder these days. (Ability to find qualified high quality teachers, also the world being more materialistic and sensual and we lacking perfections.)