text:
What are any and all of the exceptions to eating after noon if you've taken 8 precepts?
Is broth and vegetable juice allowable?
I am preferably looking for an answer by an experienced monk.

In order to understand the precept for lay people, it is useful to look at the rules for monks. For monks, there are four types of edible requisites, according to their lifetime:
1. Yavakalika
Solid food; including milk, soya milk, rice milk, etc.
This type can only be taken during the morning hours and may not be stored beyond noon of the day it was received.
2. yamakalika
Most types of uncooked, pulp-free fruit, vegetable, flower, root, or leaf juice.
This type can be taken any time of day, but only kept until dawn of the day after it was received.
3. satthahakalika
Medicinal tonics: ghee, oil, butter/cheese, honey and sugar.
This type can be taken any time of day by a monk who is sick in a way that will be assuaged by taking the tonic (usually stomach upset or hunger due to inability to keep food down). These may be kept for seven days.
4. yavajivaka
Anything normally considered as a medicine, within reason (any fruits, roots, flowers, bark, salts, etc. that are considered medicine by the world)
This type can be taken any time of day provided there is a compelling reason (i.e. a sickness that is ameliorated by taking the medicine). They may be kept one's entire life.
The sixth precept probably follows the same pattern as the monastic practice (leaving aside the part about how long items may be kept), so unless one is sick, the only thing that can really be taken outside of the morning hours is uncooked, pulp-free fruit or vegetable juice.
Tea, coffee, ginger, etc. are medicine and should only be taken if they are known to ameliorate a sickness one currently has.
Note that the five tonics can be useful for people unable to otherwise keep eight precepts due to health concerns. I once had an elderly student who was afraid to keep the eight precepts, and I suggested she try and if unable to take some butter. She was against the idea of taking butter due to its high cholesterol content, but I convinced her to try anyway. In the night, she sent a request for food so I had someone send her back a small butter pot. In the morning she came back all smiles, astonished at how well the butter worked to protect her stomach and feeling no adverse effects of keeping the precepts.

As I know the followings are allowed after the noon.

Water.
Strained fruit and vegetable juices are allowable in the afternoon.
Ghee, oil, butter/cheese, honey and sugar.
Drinks like tea, herbal infusions, ginger, cocoa and coffee.

Hope this helps.


text:
Is there an English translation of the Abhidhamma?
I wonder if there is an English version of the Abhidhamma, in its entirety?

Incedentally, ive found if you type into a search engine; (name or subject of book) followed by PDF you can find almost anything. This goes for anything from scholarly text books to religious texts.
you may have to scroll and investigate more than the first link to find the most conducive version to suit your needs. heres a few of my most used sites for finding texts. almost ever search for one leads me to one of these.
www.buddhistelibrary.org/
www.accesstoinsight.org/
www.buddhanet.net/

Very useful bibliography on Buddhist literature: http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/ckeyt/home.htm

As far as I know, there is no single compiled translation of all the volumes of the Abhidhamma but they are separately translated by several people.
You can find an index of these translations in ATI's Abhidhamma Page.
Note that, although no English translation of the "The Book of Pairs" (Yamaka) is mentioned in the above link, there is one. You can find Vol.1 here.
Abhidhamma.com also has useful material available for download, including "The Book of Pairs Vol.2".

There is a  global non-profit initiative aiming at translating the whole Kangyur and Tengyur (Abhidhamma is a part of Tengyur) into modern languages - 84000. You can browse their website to see how they work, what is their vision and which texts has been already translated into English.
Overall, there is not much translated at the moment but they hope that within 10 years a substantial amount of texts will become publicly available in English.

Abhidhamma is not part of Tengyur.

Most of the abhidhamma pitaka has been translated by the PTS:
http://www.palitext.com/palitext/tipitaka.htm
Translations are as follows:
Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics - Dhammasaṅgaṇī
The Book of Analysis - Vibhaṅga
Discourse on Elements - Dhātukathā
Points of Controversy - Kathāvatthu
Designation of Human Types - Puggalapaññatti
Conditional Relations - Paṭṭhāna
The only one that is missing is the Yamaka, for which I see there are a couple of partial translations as mentioned in another answer.

thank you. Any chance that there are digital versions of these volumes, available?

I think the scans are kicking around; scribd.com has them, I think.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Were the oldest Buddhists evangelical?
Between the time of the historical Buddha and state support by emperor Ashoka, were Buddhist monks evangelical?
In other words, did Buddhism spread through enthusiastic recruitment by the sangha, or did it spread more due to state support or something else?
Background
This personally occurred to me after living a life as a crypto-Buddhist. There were not many Buddhists around me and no one knew I was a Buddhist. This is despite nominally believing in the Bodhisattva vow, which to my ears, sounds rather evangelical.
I'm trying this question out on Stack Exchange to see if it fares better than it did on a forum, where pretty much people only could agree that they really didn't like Christians knocking at the door and that just about any form of promoting the Dharma to someone not already inclined towards Buddhism (or possibly already a self identifying Buddhist) was a grave violation of respect for autonomy, i.e. forcing one's religion on someone else. And that sentiment sounds like the value system of contemporary ex-Christians in the US more than whatever the earliest Buddhists might have thought.

+1 for 'crypto-Buddhist' ;) and a good question.

Adding to Jayantha's very good answer:
One needs to look at Indian society at the time of the Buddha. There were many masters profounding various siddhāntas(established and accepted view of a particular philosophical school). It is called an 'established conclusion' but that view is final and definitive for the one who has settled on it. It does not necessarily mean that the person will never abandon that view, but for now that person thinks it is final.
The masters continued transmission of their siddhāntas through paramparās(lineage of followers). These masters had great respect among people and many went to different masters seeking guidance and became a follower of a siddhānta. Often, one paramparā was challenged by another paramparā with philosophical arguments. The victor persisted. Thus we could consider that at that time, every master was a missionary. This answers your question if all early Buddhists were missionaries.
But there is a difference in the kind of missionary religion Buddhism is. As Dr. Arvind Sharma puts it:
"Buddhism is indeed a missionary religion, it possesses a feature which distinguishes it from Christianity and Islam as missionary religions. When one converts to these two religions, one is supposed to break from one’s previous religious past and then substitute Christian or Islamic beliefs and practices for the old ones, which are now abandoned. Buddhism, however, does not insist on such a break and conversion to it need not entail the abandonment of one’s religious past. In other words, we have another dichotomy here, between those religions which require one to abandon one’s previous religious loyalties upon conversion, and those which do not."‡
References:

‡ Sharma, Arvind. "Of Conversion and Reversion." OPEN Magazine.
N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Perdue, Daniel. "Reasoning within the Buddhist Context." The Course
in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate: An Asian Approach to Analytical
Thinking Drawn from Indian and Tibetan Sources. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N.
pag. Print.

"Go forth, o bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the good, for the happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by one way. Preach the doctrine that is beautiful in its beginning, beautiful in its middle, and beautiful in its ending. Declare the holy life in its purity, completely both in the spirit and the letter." ~ Mahavagga, Vinaya Pitaka."
I'd imagine it spread much the same way as other religions. In many cultural centers of the ancient world you would have places where multiple beliefs congregated to talk to those who walked by about their faith.
Imagine going to the mall today and in center court you had a Christian,  Hindu, Buddhist,  Jewish, Muslim, and taoist all speaking of their doctrines?
You get a glimpse in the Kalama sutta of the time of the Buddha being one where teachers and traditions were numerous and they wandered about teaching their doctrines.
"As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"
So it is obvious that Buddhism was spread much the same way as other traditions in ancient times.  What makes Buddhism mostly different is that there are almost no examples of buddhism involving forced conversation.
There is no doubt that king Asoka did for Buddhism what King Constantine did for Christianity hundreds of years later.  Once it became a religion of the dominant Kingdom its spread was assured as it went from one of many doctrines to the official state doctrine.

There was no knocking on doors tradition.It was an era of wisdom and everyone was so exited to see who is right.So when a sage comes to a village people will go to see him as a habit.If they accept what has been said they continue to be followers or they look away.
This excitement was not very far from what we see today.I am sure that you have seen how people wait in line to buy the new "Apple iPhone" or how they wait to see the next "James Bond" movie.
You might say it was diferent but it was actually quite a happening time.
For the first time they saw human defy gravity,walk in water,levitate,teleport.
They were exited to see who is right / who will win this battle of beliefs.
A good example can be found in "Maha mangala sutta".In it a being from another realm (a Deva) says that there is a certain struggle among humans that even found its way to their realm.
The question was "What is mangala / what is good or fortunate"
This was the best time for religions because it wasn't a time like this in which people are too busy for spiritual things.People were actually waiting to see what will happen next.There was a cultural and spiritual awakening in the society of India.
And Lord Buddha had no trouble introducing himself after all he was a prince once with a huge and powerful kingdom.Lord Buddha gave up all of that to find the path.Even before the enlightenment Prince siddhartha (The prince who became lord Buddha) was quite like a celebrity among the people.
But there was a special method to Lord Buddha.
Once lord Buddha saw a future of a farmer.That man was about to loose everything to a flood.But lord Buddha did not said anything,instead Lord Buddha visited him in his paddy field daily and talk to him.It was only after the flood Lord Buddha taught him dhamma.
Almost all of other religions came to debate with lord Buddha to ensure their survival against this new path.All of them were lost,and the major supporters of these beliefs became Lord Buddha's  followers.This was a huge advantage.Not to mention all the sages who lost and became followers themselves  like the "3 Jatila sage leaders Gaya kashyapa,Nadee kashyapa and their brother"

I agree. In ancient India, religion followed the pull model where people went seeking masters and not push model where religion came seeking followers.

yes it was the exact opposite of today! @Bharat

The sect then and religion now started as one primarily for monks... and co existed with the Jainas and the now extincct Ajivikas.

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


text:
Usefulness of attending a Thai temple in the United States
So I've been a Buddhist since around 2007, but I've never been to a temple. I don't think I've ever actually met another Buddhist. I just go by what I read in Bodhi's translations and Thanissaro's lectures and practice on my own.
A few months ago, I started working in Raleigh, NC, and my drive home now goes right by this Dhammayut temple (map). It's only something like 8 minutes out of my way.
I had called their number a few years ago and asked if--I forget what I said specifically--something like do you have any services? (I may have said "Sunday services." Ack.) The response was something like:

Aah.. uh, no...

Sort of like a Consuela "no.. no..". It didn't seem that the person spoke English very well, although I think he understood my question.
At the time I had figured that a Thai temple is probably just not very interested in westerners. (I've noticed typical western converts to Buddhism don't tend to wholeheartedly buy into one tradition or another, they might read books on Zen, listen to lectures by the Dalai Lama and also watch videos by Ajahn Brahm. They often totally disregard the idea of rebirth. I can see how some of this might be off-putting to conservative Theravadins.)
So I figured their interest is just in attending to the Thai community there, and/or they may have few or no people that speak English well enough to teach in that language. Since then I've sort of alternated back and forth between this view and thinking maybe I ought to pursue it further. Now that I'm so close to the temple, I'm thinking more about trying to attend.
So my question is does anyone here have first-hand experience with Thai temples in the United States and how those tend to handle westerners wanting to attend?
I'm really only interested in practice. I'm only interested in devotion-based actions (e.g. veneration of Buddha statues, kathina ceremonies) insofar as they inspire practice, because I can imagine a scenario where the only thing being done is offering of incense, giving robes and alms to monks and maybe listening to Pali chanting, with little or no meditation or English-language talks. If that's the case, it might not be worth it. (Although this is a Dhammayut temple, so I would tend to think they would certainly be doing meditation there?)
I'm specifically interested in anyone who's Thai and attends Thai temples in the United States, especially a Dhammayut temple like this one, and could give me some insight as to how they operate, what practices they do and how useful it would be to someone who's interested primarily in practice, less in ritual..

Sri Lankan monasteries tend to be more open to westerners.

I am also interested in if westerners are typically welcome at ethnic temples in the US as I've learned there is a Laotian temple not too far away from me. :)

Yeah, I'd be open to other Theravadin traditions, but it looks like for North Carolina, this temple is my only shot, unless I want to convert to Nichiren Buddhism and join SGI.

YOur experience matches mine. Many local Buddhist groups conduct their affairs in the language of their home country, so the barrier to entry for outsiders is very high. I'm not sure what the question is in your post. Maybe you could salvage it as "How do I join a ethic Buddhist group who conducts their affairs in a language I don't know" or something along that line.

I bolded the question.

the link doesnt work c.2020; they are probably Nice: if Asker still resides nearby, maybe ok to simply go there: show up, dressed respectfully, be polite & respectful & unintrusive, & if they arent wearing shoes do the same: a lot of things are self explanatory, & Asker can politely do things like point at a calendar & clock, & considering the location mentioned, they essentially have to have some language capability;(& if they reject a visitor to a general attendance function that wouldnt be very Buddhist, & in the visitors home locale might even lose them their tax exemption status)

I remember going to my first Theravada Vihara years back and thanking them for coming to teach westerners.
The monk there made a great point in response,  they came because the area had a population of Sri Lankan people who requested them to come,  not for some grand vision to bring dhamma to the west.
Very few monastics,  at least in the Theravada,  came out of a desire to spread dhamma in the west. they came as their laity moved west.  We are the secondary beneficiaries of that movement.
Ive been to that Vihara many times and it is obvious that while they do teachings in English,  their man focus is there laity from Sri Lanka.
Now there is at least one person who has dedicated the last 30 years of his life to bringing dhamma to the west,  and that's Bhante G(author of mindfulness in plain English) who created Bhavana Society.
While most Viharas are places for Sri Lankans to come and socialize,  Bhavana Society is a no nonsense meditation center that people visit from across the world.  This is the kind of place a westerner wants to be and is fully part of the community. This is the type of place to find.

Sorry not Thai.
I'm a westerner (black American) who attends a Thai Forest temple, and they were welcoming to me since the beginning. Honestly as someone who has been attending for a while, the "Sunday service" question would have been strange to me too. We have chanting and meditation open to laypeople once in the morning and evening. Of course, visitors are welcome all day, and there are regulars who also make lunch for the monks, and offer other food, medicine, and other donations.
It is not good to make decisions based on your imagination. For example, your assessment would be incorrect if applied to our temple. Offering robes formerly is mostly only done once a year for Vesaka. Also, donations, chanting, and meditation go hand-in-hand. Offering food, taking refuge, praising the Three Jewels, practicing gratitude for things we do not normally think about (food, shelter, clothing), and spreading loving-kindness is the basis for a healthy meditative life. At my temple, they speak both Thai and English, and if you can find an English version of the Pali chanting book they use (technically their books are already in "English" as far as using transliterated Roman script), it is easy to pick up on the keywords that let you know what you are chanting at any given moment.
Also, the Buddhists in our temple are comfortable with going to Mahayana-based temples as well, and "doing as the Romans do", which includes more incense offering and devotional aspects like that.
Saying that, the Dhammakyut orders formed from a movement that basically Protestantized Buddhism in that region, so you have to take in account how Thai Buddhism is practiced in modern times when considering practicing Thai Buddhism.
It is really like any other new place. You just go in and check it out, without expectations, meet it on its own terms, then decide whether the temple is for you or not.

I'm not quite sure I'd say Dhammayut is a "Protestantized Buddhism" so much as it was Prince Mongkut's obsession with vinaya purity for monks. When people use "Protestant Buddhism," they're usually referring to the reforms in Sri Lankan Buddhism in the 1800s.

While I'm sure that is the case, in general, "protestantized" is an accurate term for speaking generally about the event, since it does imply a purging of all "impure" practices.

I have been to only one temple in the West and it wasn't Thai. A very traditional one. They had no website, not spacious, the interior "design" - there's none - just traditional set up, no music, occasionally filled with smoke from burning incense.

This is only generally spoken; it is not a rule, but:
An irrelevant, however, funny example, would be Asian restaurants.

If one has some friends from Asia or even himself has travelled there in Asia, one would notice that most of them would dine at this restaurant that is totally below par to the "western" standard.
One asks why, he would usually reply: "It is the food that is superb here; am not here for service or decoration."
One replies: "What about the one over there? It looks nice and comfortable. And clean."
He replies: "Restaurants like these know how to hire good interior designers, but good cook? No."
And it turns out that they are right about this, speaking from experience traveling there. Food is in fact more traditional and tastier at those run-down restaurants.
At least in Asia.
And they are certainly not an attraction to Westerners.

So, relating this to Asian Temples.

I often find that one could really learn something and get to experience what one initially intends going to an Asian Temple by visiting a temple that is not "commercially-motivated" nor has its target towards Westerners.
The tough part one usually feels initially is language barrier and thusly the misunderstanding one might experience at these places.

What I have learnt is: patience.

Initially, your eagerness would be lessened by not having the feeling that you are being "attended", sometimes your questions are not answered (language barrier), you might feel ignored (again, as in the example regarding restaurants, they are not "good at" pulling off a good Facade (interior design, service in restaurants) but it doesn't mean they hate you (i.e., they can cook good food. Speaks: they welcome you at heart, but fail to give you a "welcoming" that you expect according to your standard and habits of feeling well-received)).
So, what is wrong with going to Temples that are more "Westerners-friendly"?

Nothing's wrong in that. But:

If one wants to learns Buddhism, one might want to learn first to "un-do" what we are used to like a newborn, born naked, without having (losing all) pre-cognitions / conditions / perceptions / judgements and learning everything from scratch.
If a Temple has its target towards Westerners, it would usually tries to "suit" your behavior and ways rather than taking the initiative to "correct" / teach you.
So, again, patience is the key, if one so happens to take part in Temples that do not have their "target" towards Westerners. As times go by, one would find himself having conversations with them, the language barrier and misunderstanding would slowly dimmish (if people really would like to communicate, they will find a way. Body language, drawing etc..).
All in all, one is not tied to take part in only one Temple. One could participate in the ones I have mentioned here and at the same time others that are more "Westerners-friendly" as well, just to initially experience and learn from both sides.

And like the other answerer has said:

Perhaps some day when you have "mastered" this, you could guide others in the West regarding Buddhism and share with them your experiences so that their starting path would be easier.
Who knows, perhaps by that time you will have learn a bit a new language, too, by taking part in these Temples and with your translation ability, you could help other beginners even better.

And when meditating with others, there is no language or cultural
  barriers.

When you posted this question a few weeks back, I was in a very similar situation. I had recently found out there is a Laotian temple not too far from me. The temple did not have a website and my phone call to them turned out pretty much exactly like yours! But secular Buddhist activities don't have great appeal for me and I really wanted to visit a Theravada monastery/temple. Today was the day and it went well. :)
Prior to today, I took a scouting visit there to see if I could find out any information. There was no one around at the time, but a sign on the door said that the public was welcome and a few rules were listed. Take your shoes off, sit on your legs, don't point your feet at the Buddha statue or anyone else and the monks should be called Ajahn. (I'm including this because I think Lao and Thai customs are similar.) But there was no indication of "when" the public was welcome.
I went home and did a deep google search of the Temple's name and ended up finding things people had posted in their blogs or on facebook and it did sound like services were held on Sundays; but not every Sunday.
I took a chance to show up this Sunday at 9:45am and indeed people were arriving for services. It was clear I was a first timer and a nice family invited me to sit with them and guided me through everything. I recognized the Taking Refuge and 5 precepts easily because it was in Pali and it was cool to be able to participate in that publicly for the first time. Here is a link in case you don't have the words to Taking Refuge in Pali yet. http://refuge.sirimangalo.org/#precepts5
I also recognized paritta chanting because I've listened to it so many times on youtube as I find it beautiful and soothing. Ex. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj4pOcsYsGA&feature=share
There was no meditation during the services but I was told they sometimes have all night meditation on Saturday nights and I put my name on a mailing list to find out about upcoming events and services which are held about once a month.
Today was a special ceremony that included filling the monks alms bowls and after the monks ate, everyone else did. I was made to feel very welcome to participate even though I hadn't known to bring anything. I'm vegetarian, but in the spirit of being appreciative of everyone's hospitality, I just tried a bit of everything anyway and it was delicious. My favorite was a bamboo dish with tiny pieces of hot pepper. :)
I couldn't understand the Dhamma talk of course, but it was a good time to do a listening meditation and just relax and take in the beauty of the temple.
If I hadn't gone; I'd have kept wondering about it. I'm glad I went. Everyone was very welcoming and a couple of people actually thanked me for coming; which was unexpected.
It was just a nice experience. I'll definitely go back next time. If you decide to go, I hope you have a good experience as well.

I can relate to your question. I'm from Brazil and it is very hard to find Buddhists here and when I did I found only New Kadampa Tradition and FPMT (both Tibetan Mahayana). I do like FPMT very much and went to a great retreat in Nepal with them, but I'm currently more interested in the Theravada tradition.
This is what I do:

When I have the chance to go to Asia, I return with lots of books and audio CDs from Theravada monks. Last time I went to a Theravada temple was in Kuala Lumpur and the reception was great (they gave me everything for free, of course I did some donation to compensate, but it was really optional).
I use internet a lot; videos, discussion forums like this one and ebooks. I can recommend the videos from Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu.

Don't worry if you are not physically close to a Sangha. Use the tools you have available and when you can (holidays) go for a retreat :)
hope it helps

There is a Thai temple near my home in Maryland.  It is receptive to Westerners, though they're probably less than 1% of the people who go there.  I'd encourage you to call back - you'd probably get a different person answering the phone and maybe a more positive response.


text:
Why do Buddhist Stupas have various shapes?
I came across a gallery of Stupas from around the world and it made me wonder why some of them differ in shape considerably. Do they express different aspects of Buddhism or is the source of difference rather cultural/historical?
I am aware that in Tibetan Buddhism there are 9 types of Stupas and they have a rather uniform shape. What I am interested in is why the ones found in, for example, Sri Lanka or India, have a much different shape and style.

I'm going to guess this question doesn't have a good answer-- the original custom (per wikipedia) came from burial mounds. When the custom of building stupas spread away from India, I would imagine people read about stupas but had never seen one. This phenomena shows up in art depicting bizarre elephants and lions-- things that ancient Buddhists in lands where it spread had read about but never seen.

Your comment suggests that the difference might stem from purely cultural reasons which would be a valid answer I guess. I would like to hear that from the sources other than Wikipedia though :)

According to "Buddhist Art & Architecture" by Robert E. Fisher, the stupa is one of three main types of Buddhist buildings. (The other two are the residence hall (vihara) and the hall of worship (chaitya).
Early stupas were solid inside and patterned after Hindu burial mounds. They were typically a dome set upon a low platform with a single pillar emerging from the top which had 3 umbrella-like discs covering the pillar. The pillar and it's umbrellas would be surrounded by a small fence; a miniature version of the fence that surrounded the stupa itself. The pillar represented the "world mountain" or axis mundi; the pivot of the universe. The 3 umbrellas came to symbolize the Three Jewels of Buddhism. (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) Inside, the stupas were arranged into geometric, magical designs and generally housed sacred relics. Buddhist worship included circumambulation (moving clockwise) around the stupa and the sacred object contained inside.
With the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism, the practice of circumambulation was not prevalent (with Mahayanist Buddhists) as sacred items were placed in the worship hall and worshiped from the front only as the back of the hall would be blocked off for secret rituals. Robert E. Fisher notes the following regarding a change in style of stupa at Ajanta, India:

The stupa continued to be the focal point of the worship hall, and was now embellished and extended with carvings and additional motifs in keeping with the increased complexities of Mahayana worship. The body of the stupa, the anda, is moved upwards and the base extended to accommodate a large image of the Buddha. The figure is placed between richly carved pillars and surrounded by subordinate figures and elaborate, decorative motifs, typical of the Gupta taste. The pillar and umbrella at the top also gain in complexity, assuming greater prominence, nearly doubling the stupa's height in Cave 19. The once simple, earthbound stupa has evolved into a complex of images and symbols, not only attached to the earth, but also extended vertically. The older empasis upon the historical, earthly Buddha is giving way to the celestial, mystical realms of esoteric belief.

As Sri Lanka was established as a stronghold for Theravada Buddhism, a change in stupa shape (from the original Indian stupas) was noted, as in the stupa in Anuradhapura, in that the body of the stupa became bell shaped and the traditional spire became enlarged and was compared to the graceful tower of a medieval Hindu temple. Robert E. Fisher writes that "according to some" the enlargement of the traditional spire was an effort by Singhalese builders to join two symbols, the pillar of the world and the heights of Mt. Meru.
Mr. Fisher writes regarding the Sri Lankan style:

Similar proportions, the dominant bell-shaped andas, prominent harmikas (small platform with railing) and tapered spires are retained in later stupas in Burma, Thailand, and Cambodia.
Theravada Buddhism, with its more limited pantheon and emphasis upon direct action, unlike the salvationist beliefs and spectacular heavens of the Mahayana is perfectly served by the clean, uncomplicated forms and geometric harmonies of the Sri Lankan stupa.

The book notes across Asia, the stupa assumed a variety of regional forms. Thai and Burmese stupas were tall and graceful. In Vietnam and Cambodia, separate stupas rarely appeared as temples were built into mountainsides; but sometimes small "votive" style stupas were build inside those temples. In Java, small stupas decorated the terraces of the temples.
The book does go on in quite a bit more detail regarding changes in the look of stupas including the change to open, wooden stupas in the Far East, where they were called pagodas. It was also noted that later styles of stupas typically did not contain sacred relics and were not always built inside walled enclosures. They became more decorative and less sacred.
Hope this sheds some insight. :)


text:
What are the funeral rites for Tibetan lay Buddhists?
I am mostly interested in how a Tibetan Buddhist funeral is carried out in the West, i.e. in countries where Buddhism is not a leading religion. Are there any particular practices or ceremonies that family and friends should perform?

For which branch of Buddhism? "Lay Buddhism" is not a singular religion. You say "from any tradition," except that doesn't make for a great SE question since it is too broad.

In my last sentence I mentioned that input from any tradition is welcome. thanks.

I am aware of that, which just makes it a poor fit for a SE site. See Real Questions Have Answers.

ok, will edit it so that I ask for a particular branch. Thank you for your quick reaction :)

Irrespective of the tradition, you could do good deeds on behalf of the dead and pass on the merits. They expect you to do so if they are born in a place where they can receive merits.

One thing that comes to mind is reading aloud the Tibetan Book of the Dead. When one of my Buddhist friends died I read it for him and I felt it helped both of us attain piece of mind.
For those who are not familiar with Tibetan Book of the Dead, it is meant to be recited for the deceased by a lama (or the most spiritual person available in the absence of real lama). The text addresses the deceased directly, walking him or her through various post-death experiences and relating them with Buddhist Teaching.
As Chogyam Trungpa tells in The Mishap Lineage, since its discovery by Karma Lingpa in 14th century, Tibetan Book of the Dead was preserved in Surmang Monastery and passed down the line of Trungpa Tulkus.


text:
How does one practice to develop super-mundane powers through meditation?
I have heard rumors of this happening and am curious if there is anything (especially textually according to the canon) on what practices may lead to this as i would like to see for myself if it is true or not. Please include references.
An example being ESP or other psychic phenomena.
Yes i know it is beside the point of practice and telling me that is not an answer to my question. Neither is the cop-out of "inappropriate question" so please refrain from posting such opinions!

Yes, Daniel Ingram's also did a show on Buddhist Geeks podcast. Since he was talking about powers/shiddhi's in terms of things that happened in ones own mind, it seemed more like experiences than harry potter magic. ref http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2008/02/bg-061-buddhist-magic-what-is-possible-with-the-powers/

Part of Daniel Ingram's "thing" is to speak more openly and frankly about this kind of topic than "traditional" Buddhists are sometimes willing to do. So you could have a look at his "Mastering The Core Teachings of the Buddha" which I think mentions some of these phenomena. Also, the site he started, dharmaoverground.org has an entire sub-forum dedicated to discussion of such things. Here's Ingram himself in that sub-forum.
I have to add, for completeness -- and I'm not criticizing your question -- that I personally look on all that stuff askance. I'm not saying it's not real (although the meaning of the word "real" seems to take a bit of a beating on those discussions), but it's not why I got and remain interested in Buddhism.

Through practicing samatha and vipassana meditation. After abandoning the five hindrances and after mastering the Jhanas a practitioner turns their attention to and attains Insight Knowledge, Supranormal Powers, Clairaudience, Mind Reading, Recollection of Past Lives, The Passing Away & Re-appearance of Beings, The Ending of Mental Fermentations and Conversations with the Gods.
From the Maha-Assapura Sutta:

With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion...
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma...

From Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: To Kevatta:

With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. He hears — by means of the divine ear-element, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far.
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land.
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings. He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion. He discerns a mind with aversion as a mind with aversion, and a mind without aversion as a mind without aversion. He discerns a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion, and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion. He discerns a restricted mind as a restricted mind, and a scattered mind as a scattered mind.

I think the aim of meditation is not to attain super powers, as Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu once said: "Super powers are a kind of byproduct of the process"
we must always remember why we practice meditation and keep the right motivation, this is more important, trying to attain super powers might lead to attachment to such powers or desire... it is more beneficial to use meditation for insights that lead to disenchantment, deattachment and so on

If you are looking for supernatural powers, Samatha meditation practices are what you are looking for. Read the Visuddhimagga. It has detailed explanations on how to attain various powers. But make sure to find a good teacher who has experience with Samatha meditation. Trying to do it without guidance can be dangerous! They say you can go crazy.

"Some people have gone crazy." I see this often enough but have never seen any kind of citation. Do you know where I can find more information on this?

Don't have a link for you. But there are people here in lunatic asylums who claim to be Buddhas and have all sorts of powers.

Sounds like the causation could be in the reverse order, people who are detached from reality (say from organic disease like schizophrenia) might incorporate all sorts of things into their hallucinations, from pop culture to religion.

Here's an article about people going crazy when they try to practice Kundalini(basically Samatha) without a master. http://www.kktanhp.com/kundalini.htm

@user70 How to Measure and deepen your spiritual realization briefly deals with insanity and powers. Since I can't copy from the PDF, I grabbed a screen shot here - http://imgur.com/UtPFCqk


text:
What is the reasoning for making a buddhist statue out of gold?
The Golden Buddha, officially titled Phra Phuttha Maha Suwan Patimakon, is the world's largest solid gold statue.
What is the justification for such a statue? By justification I mean, what reasons would the Buddhists who created/use the statue give to explain why keeping gold (often seen as a sign of wealth and power) as a statue is right; as opposed to using the money from melting it down and selling it to buy meals for the homeless or others in need.

To offer with humility to the teacher(Buddha) what you hold precious and pure (gold ).

I answered your question, but I don't know what you mean by "justification", and I didn't want to assume, so could you clarify?

I don't have the reference handy, but the tradition of statues started in Greece and spread through the middle east as far as Afganistan. From Afganistan, the tradition of Buddhist statues spread through the rest of the Buddhist world.

@user70 - Ah, sorry. I'm just seeing this clarification. I'll add to my answer the best I can.

Practically, religious images are made using precious medals to prevent decay, so that the image can be available to venerate for many generations to come. From a more devotional aspect, choosing materials that we think of as beautiful shows a great reverence for the person that image represents. Religious images often "open and lift our minds" to higher ideals, including dharma practice, which is why, for example, people can be better practiticioners just by being in the temple's main hall, where the main images usually are.
I suppose a good analogy is showing respect for your boss and co-workers by coming to work in what best represents the workplace's business casual dress code, not just in a T-shirt with holes. Or, having enough respect for yourself to attend to your basic hygiene before leaving your home.
Precious metals and stones are frequently used in religious imagery. For example, in the Larger Pureland Sutra (Verse 54), we have:

Furthermore, throughout that land are trees made of the seven gems. There are trees of gold; trees of silver; trees of coral; trees of amber; trees of agate; trees of ruby; and trees of lapis lazuli. Then there are trees of two precious substances, trees of three, four, up to all seven.
Some gold trees have silver leaves, flowers and fruits. Some silver trees have gold leaves, flowers and fruits. Some coral trees have leaves flowers and fruit of amber. Some amber trees have leaves flowers and fruit of coral. Some agate trees have leaves, flowers and fruit of ruby. Some ruby trees have leaves, flowers and fruits of agate. Some lapis lazuli trees have leaves, flowers and fruit of all sorts of jewels.
There are trees with red gold roots, white silver trunks, coral branches, amber twigs, agate leaves, ruby flowers and lapis lazuli fruits. There are trees with white silver roots, coral trunks, amber branches, agate twigs, ruby leaves, lapis lazuli flowers and red gold fruit. There are trees with coral roots, amber trunks, agate branches, ruby twigs, lapis lazuli leaves, red gold flowers and white silver fruit. There are trees with amber roots, agate trunks, ruby branches, lapis lazuli twigs, gold leaves, silver flowers and coral fruits. There are trees with agate roots, ruby trunks, lapis lazuli branches, gold twigs, silver leaves, coral flowers and amber fruit. There are trees with ruby roots, lapis lazuli trunks, gold branches, silver twigs, coral leaves, amber flowers and agate fruit. There are trees with lapis lazuli roots, gold trunks, silver branches, coral twigs, amber leaves, agate flowers and ruby fruits.

The general understanding is that even the most beautiful objects we have on earth still pale in comparison to the beauty of the dharma, and this is just our feeble attempt to reflect that, and, like Jyothi said, offer our best to the Supreme One, who gives us a much more valuable gift.
Edit - user70 clarified:

What is the justification for such a statue? By justification I mean, what reasons would the Buddhists who created/use the statue give to explain why keeping gold (often seen as a sign of wealth and power) as a statue is right; as opposed to using the money from melting it down and selling it to buy meals for the homeless or others in need.

Well, a lot of institutions do both. At my Thai Forest (Theravdin) sangha, there are golden images, and we also give to charity, and obviously we do not charge for any services. The retreats, and even the Thai language classes, are completely donation-based. We do not shame anyone who cannot donate anything, and people with means donate more than enough to make-up for it. So we make sure that nothing keeps people from learning, not even lack of funds.
Not everyone will probably agree with this, but I propose that artistic beauty is an intrinsic good. This is why we continue to promote the arts in the secular world--I can't eat a beautiful painting, but it can nourish my mind, even if only in the moment I am looking at it. In my experience with working and feeding homeless people in a religious setting, many liked that we were providing them with food and warm shelter in the cold, as well as a beautiful setting to just appreciate our art. I don't know if many of us who have an almost unlimited access to beautiful images through internet searches can fathom living a life where all you saw was ugly, dark decay. It does not make for a healthy mind, which goes hand-in-hand with a healthy body.
So to answer your question, in the real world, it does not have to be an either/or decision (between beauty/charity), nor is it a zero-sum game where charity is sacrificed for art. When there are greedy people heaping up image after image for greed's sake, perverting the purpose of Buddhist imagery--which is to communicate the dharma--there should be accountability. The presence of art wouldn't hinder the advocacy of accountability.

Yet there are no evidences to create buddha statues and is only the source of resentment if not now then future. It also completely robs away the teachings of Buddha and the newer generation influenced by the surrounding pagan traditions emulate it on bUddha and consider him to be God , perform rituals on it etc, this is mockery of Buddha himself.

@Bodhi - I have never witnessed such a resentment, but I do believe you when you say that some people are resentful. However, I would counter that 1) even more people would be resentful of their religion being stripped of the tradition that has been grounding them for generations because people thought they were too ignorant to keep it and 2) upaya such as religious imagery and ritual teaches illiterate people, or people without scholarly inclination, and there is nothing wrong with not having scholarly inclination when it comes to religion. We should make following the path easier, for(con't)

(con't) more people, not turning it into an elitist club where only the ones who "really get it" benefit. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas love everyone, so I do not doubt that they will answer a call of sincerity, instead of denying people merit for not getting everything right on some dharmic checklist. Also, the newer generation is actually even more information hungry on average, so I do not think the dharma is in danger. So, alienating people for the sake of strict orthodoxy is unnecessary. People are free to join traditions that don't emphasize imagery; there is something for everyone.

I disagree , When Buddha came he came as a reformist and did anger many a people by mocking \repudiating many a cherished traditions and was seen as an iconoclast by the orthodox hindus. Hence purity of teachings and its safeguard is very much important , by not allowing such imagery it is contributing to preserving the pure teachings which are vehemently againt Idol worship and irrational ritualism.

@Bodhi - I have already had this discussion in the comment section of the answer below. Further, a moderator has pointed out to me that the comment section is not the ideal place for side talk. However, if you request a clarification, I can edit my answer to address it.

It is more of a cultural thing and corruption in teachings of Buddha, Buddha himself had strictly prohibited symbolism which causes attachment to it.
eg: Taliban demolished a similar structure then it caused resentment and grief even to the Buddhist community which shows their attachment to the symbol\Idol completely defeating the core teaching of deattachment.
To conclude there is no justification of such a statue rather a hindrance to the teachings of Buddha , hence should be dismantled ,melted to bullion and sold of and distribute the proceed to the poor.

Very true. Not only is it far easier to worship a symbol than to practice what it represents, but it also completely misses the point.

"Buddha himself had strictly prohibited symbolism which causes attachment to it." - Citation please?

Also, I do not think there is any justification to calling statues a "corruption". Even though there are some traditions who advocate practicing without them, it is because that approach best agrees with their method, and it is not a condemnation of other traditions (who often take part in charitable activities). Honestly, I find this answer uncharitable and sectarian.

@SophieC: Calling traditions that advocate practicing without Buddha statues sectarian is daring. Quite the opposite seems to be the case, since Buddha statues only started emerging 600 years after his death.

@back2dos - I didn't. I found the answer sectarian. I do not think that the answer accurately represents the stance of those traditions.

@back2dos - Edit - Also, as to your historical point, I personally do not see the value in trying to reconstruct a religious concept based on "the original". Since we weren't there, our perspective is obviously going to be flawed. Further, it is natural for religions to evolve over time, and chasing the past often leads to someone practicing a religion that only exists in their head.

@SophieC: Just because a religion evolves "naturally" (like Christianity that started as a practice of forgiveness and compassion and devolved into a justification for the crusades and witch hunt and slavery) it doesn't mean it gets more useful to the practitioner in any way. Also, all religion only exists in the respective practitioners head, unless you assign absolute value to external aspects - such as religious symbols or institutions. That may actually be fine, but more often than not has been an instrument of oppression throughout human history.

@back2dos - 1) How have you proven imagery is less useful? If anything, imagery and ritual is more useful to illiterate people, or people who do not have the inclination for Buddhist studies (there is nothing wrong with that; religion isn't everyone's forte), 2) the Buddhist community and our commonality of belief is definitely not something just in my head, and in no way is celebrating the dharma with others an instrument of oppression and 3) it takes a community to fight instruments of oppression, not one lone person. I do not think the solution to answering this is to become(con't)

(con't)isolationist. This concept is actually contrary to human nature. Our understanding of different concepts, like religion, is social and dynamic. It is not a coincidence that hermits have to be very advanced in spiritual practice (or at least on their way to being so) in order to be able to practice alone and not go insane. Us householders who do not have that same experience suffer in isolation. Even modern psychologists agree that extreme isolation is damaging to the human mind. Lastly, removing imagery would not guarantee that Buddhism wouldn't devolve, not that Buddhism has(con't)

(con't) its hands completely clean, even today. We cannot control the future, so I don't see how removing religious imagery would be any more of a protective measure than, say, demanding more accountability for embezzlers, sexual predators, and pedophiles in the sangha. With the statues gone, those people would still remain.

The back-and-forth discussion would be better off in chat.

@SophieC: 1) You are the one claiming that the imagery of a a particular cult of personality is useful (history largely showing the opposite), thus the burden of proof is yours to bear not mine. 2) How is celebrating the dharma and idolatry the same thing? 3) When did I suggest isolationism? You like statues then that's your business. But I find your judging answers you don't like sectarian, your unfocused discourse, your fallacies and your putting words in my mouth disingenuous. I suggest instead you try to answer the question, which you didn't, even though it was clarified at your request.

@back2dos - I received no clarification by the user. As for the rest, I have answered your objections, any more and I would be repeating myself, so that's a good sign that I have said all that can be said.

@Hrafn - Not ignoring you. Maybe this question is better for chat (so if it disappears I won't be offended), but for future reference: I thought that as long as the back-and-forth didn't go off-topic, it was allowed. Is there any other criteria?

@SophieC Usually comments are best for clarification or to suggest edits. They aren't really searchable or editable (the former being the killer from the SE standpoint) and they are frequently cleaned up, so while it isn't a "problem" per se chat is usually a better vehicle.

In this issue it may be helpful if all could stop questioning why these things are there. Just let go and accept that they are without judgement. The statues represent a reminder and rallying call to all that are on their journeys. We should not cling onto judgemental views upon the values of metal. What difference does it make to anything but yourself. Stop being angry and just let go.

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


text:
What is the right time for seclusion?
When is the right time for seclusion? When is the wrong time for seclusion? How much time should be spent in seclusion?

I suppose it would depend on your particular situation. From the list of the benefits, I suppose the answers are now, never, as long as you can- ref: http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=28_special_qualities_of_solitary_meditation (But I would find it dreadfully lonesome)

@MatthewMartin Go ahead and make this an answer instead of a comment if you want.

Why do I depend on this so much, seclusion of the day.

@Ann Marie Hathaway The calmness of solitude and seclusion is pleasurable! Especially so if your life is very hectic.

I practice with Triratna Buddhists so for us solitary retreats are seen as an important part of practice. So much so that if one wanted to become ordained (as many do) then the expectation is of at least one solitary retreat. So if I can have a go at your questions
Right Time
When you have been practicing for at least 6 months and have attended at least one group retreat
How much time
Depends. The people that I know usual do a week but many start off with a few days. Ultimately people can and do spend months on solitary
Wrong Time
I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone saying a wrong time except with the above caveats. I guess as ever you should kind to yourself on these things. Even though it is solitary it is  up to you how you spend the time. It doesn't have to be 8 hours meditation a day if that isn't appropriate for you at that point. Many people for instance have spent some of their time writing (about the dharma) and have found that beneficial for them at that point.
Confession
I have never been on solitary retreat so this is all second hand. I do believe it is a valuable practice though so would like to at some point.

Basically: whenever you're ready for it. Solitude is a human right.
Technical Buddhist answer: when you have achieved >= "access concentration", preferably 1st jhana, optimally 4th jhana. Also you should know what what you're going to be doing (vipassana/jhana, how long, etc. read schedule).
If you don't have at least access concentration, you'll just flounder in emotions and what-not until you get access concentration. It's a catch-22.


text:
Sense of calmness in meditation, what is it?
In a first 10 day vipassana meditation course I did almost continuous intensive meditation for 7 days ,I felt a strange calmness such that I could almost not feel the weight of my body , this feeling lasted till 2-3 days and then I stopped doing it, So what is that feeling called and is it common after meditation? Also after I resumed the meditation then I could not get back the same feeling (nor was I seeking for it).

Don't worry what it's called; don't cling to these experiences; keep going :)

@Andrei, http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/61/answers-vs-advice

@Tommy thanks, I'm on a fence about this. On one hand I see the danger of trolling. One the other hand, as an "advanced" student, I can't just let people hang themselves on their mind's rope. Even though I have not "crossed the stream" myself, I more or less know which direction is not right, so when someone asks a question that I know is not useful (comparing to hundred other questions they should ask, but are not asking!) - I just can't help but offer my "advice" for what its worth. One way in which I will agree with your point and take it, is in providing a more elaborate advice than I did

@Andrei, I understand, and if I was advanced I'd maybe be tempted in the same way. I think the problem is mostly one of receptivity. If someone hasn't asked for advice they're unlikely to be in a place to take it. It's Transactional Analysis. By offering advice to someone who hasn't asked, you risk moving into a "Parent" role and pushing them into a "Child" one. The result is offense is easily taken. Also, in this case there's not enough evidence to say that Bodhi was worrying about it or clinging to it. He just asked what it was. He said explicitly that he wasn't seeking the calmness.

I suppose this is not the best place to get into polemics about a third person :) Next time I feel a tangential reply will be helpful, I will make sure it is spelled out enough that it does not look like trolling nor gets the person into defensive.

If it is accompanied by tingling limbs, tingling lips or minor headache it can be a sign of hyperventilation.
It can also be a feeling associated with detachment and depersonalization. Here is a scientific study, albeit with only 6 participants, that confirms meditation can induce depersonalization. It talks about treatment for depersonalization but personally I do not consider it a bad thing and instead part of the meditation experience.
Here is a .pdf that is more in depth: The Circumplex Structure of Depersonalization/Derealization

great so this is not a supernatural exp but something which can be explained by science and hence possibly induced.

and yes there was tingling of lips \body which was marketed as "Dhara pravah"

this tingling sensation is marketed as "energy currents" is it correct to say so?

@Bodhi I'm not entirely sure what to say about that from a Buddhist perspective. According to my understanding of science the tingling sensation is a sign that a person is expelling too much C02, too quickly. As a benefit, it can offer the individual a chance to explore altered states of mind. On the other hand, it can make the person pass out, have seizures and cause the muscles in their arms to contract and freeze their hands in a claw shape for a few hours. Although, the seizures and clawing are in extreme cases. In any case, voluntary hyperventilation is utilized in spiritual exercises.

The sensation of the body 'feeling heavy', very relaxed, 'numb' or almost as if it's disappearing is quite normal. When there is nothing new happening, sort of, when bodily sensations don't change, the mind 'loses interest' and kind of deactivates those sense inputs. This can be beneficial for focusing on the mind experience, since there are no longer as many body sensations impinging on the attention.
Going looking for the same sensations again can get you stuck instead of moving forward, so it sounds like a good idea not to seek it, as you mention. More likely, you may experience different types of calmness and other experiences, when you let go and are not chasing an experience you've had, previously.
The calmness you are referring to, sounds like samadhi - a deep calmness brought about by "single pointedness of mind". In deepest samadhi, absorption is so complete that all sense of "self" disappears, and subject and object are completely absorbed into each other. However, there are many kinds and levels of samadhi.
Wikipedia: Samadhi

great answer , I always seeked  a scientific explanation of these feelings and got it:"loses interest' and kind of deactivates those sense inputs. This can be beneficial for focusing on the mind experience, since there are no longer as many body sensations impinging on the attention."

samadhi means like death right? so could this be harmful if continued?

from wiki :I guess it is Asamprajñata is a step forward from savikalpa. According to Patañjali,[10] asamprajñata is a higher awareness state with absence of gross awareness.[12]

Not a scholar using technical lingo, more inclined to describe things as down to earth as possible. I added a link to Wikipedia describing Samadhi.

yes this term "absence of gross awareness" is the closest thing, do you know about it?

Too much to write in a comment. ;-) I would refer to reading about the Jhanas, where the body "disappears" from attention and the experience is of increasingly refined states of mind. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html

have you also experienced this?

Great answer, thank you. I especially found the explanation about the deep calmness useful and the fact you mention that if one does not seek the feeling of calmness one previous had, then one might experience new different levels of calmness. Its so easy to get attached to the feeling of calmness so one must really be aware when that is about to happen and remind oneself that this too is impermanent.

(Disclaimer: Take this answer as a -means- to explore further and -not- as a definitive answer since the range of descriptions of meditative experiences varies quite a bit from person to person.)
1. What is that feeling called?
From what you are describing, I would say it is the ease (Sukha) that comes from a rapturous (Pīti) meditative experience.
2. Is it common after meditation?
Yes, I would say it is common and advised by the Buddha to keep developing it. (You may want to see Jhāna for more information.)


text:
Do all Buddhist schools give dharma names upon ordination?
I was glad to read in MatthewMartin's answer to another question that he'd be interested to know if dharma names are common to all Buddhist groups/schools/sects, or if there are any that don't give monks new names on ordination. This is something I've also been curious about.
In addition, I believe the usual practice is for the teacher to select the name for his newly ordained pupil, which might represent a lesson to learn, or an encouragment, or a trait to focus on during the new monk's future growth. So my question is whether this practice is universal amongst Buddhists, or if there are any schools that follow a different tradition or refrain from dharma names completely,

An interesting twist is that at least one school of Buddhism does not have monastics but does give Dharma names to lay followers at a ceremony called Affirmation. For example, from: http://bffct.org/bff/resources/shin-buddhism-in-a-nutshell/

In the Shin religion, there are no monastics, monks or nuns, but there are teachers both ordained clergy and certified lay instructors. They are not seen as above everyone else or holding the secret keys to spiritual liberation, but are ordinary people, both men and women, who are just more learned or experienced spiritual seekers.

In the particular American group referenced above, lay followers are invited to participate in an Affirmation ceremony upon completion of a number of requirements including general Buddhist studies and participation in a retreat. The lay follower selects their own Dharma name from a Zen tradition list such as:
http://www.ciolek.com/wwwvlpages/zenpages/ZenNames.html#H
The names range from lovely to self deprecating, which might be desirable for someone who wanted to keep the idea of humility close to heart.
I saw some scattered informal references to laity in Zen traditions receiving Dharma names (not sure of the extent of this practice) and even a mention of the deceased receiving a Dharma name in Japan:

In Japan, other than the standard usage of dharma names for monastics and laity, it is also tradition for the deceased to receive a dharma name (戒名, kaimyō; lit. "precept name") written in Kanji from the priest. This name supposedly prevents the return of the deceased if his name is called.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_name#cite_note-3

Although Theravada monks take a Pali name when they ordain, I don't think it's given any spiritual significance in the way that it is in other schools.

Just copying through my response at the bottom of MatthewMartins question where I give a response
Though it isn't a Buddhist order as such - the Insight Meditation Society doesn't rename as far as I'm aware. Jack Kornfield is still Jack Kornfield irrespective of his commitment and progress on the path (both formidable I'm sure)


text:
What are the Pali translations for mindfulness?
I know that the Pali word for mindfulness is sati as in the Satipatthana Sutta but I've also heard that there is more than one word for mindfulness that is used throughout the Pali Canon.
Can anyone give a list of the different words used and perhaps point out the differences in emphasis or exact meaning? For instance, do all the words mean exactly the same or do particular ones emphasise a different quality of mindfulness?

Sati in Pali or Smrti in Sanskrit. Perhaps you mean partial synonyms? Caution, awareness, heedfulness - that kind of stuff.

Maybe so. I was in a study group a while back and 3 or 4 other Pali words were given for mindfulness (which I have forgotten hence the question). I thought at the time these were standard translations. Maybe they aren't

Quick PTS dictionary check showed: dhāraṇatā, avippavāsa, sarasankappa, and there is also derivatives of sati, like: anussati, paṭissati, satitā.

The Pali word is Sati, which derives from the verb Sarati, which literally means to remember. If you look at how the word is actually used in the texts, there seems to be three distinct senses of the term.
The first sense is the most general, and it just means memory, or the ability to recall events and information. This isn't a major meaning of the term Sati in the Buddhist texts, but it does show up occasionally.
In a second sense, Sati has a more specific meaning of focusing the mind on an object. This is more commonly used in the form of a suffix, so for example
Ānāpānasati means setting the mind on the Ānā and pāna, the in-breath and the out-breath.
In the last sense, it has a much more specific meaning. It means the setting of the mind on an object of ultimate reality, meaning setting the mind on direct experience itself, which can be divided up into four categories of body,feeling, mind, and dhammas, meaning physical sensation, the experience of something as pleasant, unpleasant, or neither, awareness, and various mental qualities that occur in the mind such as emotions.
This list is called the four Satipatthana, and the correct setting of the mind on them is called Samma-Sati, or right mindfulness, which is the seventh factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. The standard definition found in many places in the Suttas is as follows:

And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains
  focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself...
  mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is
  called right mindfulness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html
There are other aspects of the definition which the Ven. Yuttadhammo has already mentioned in his answer as well

Actually, the only good translation I can think of for the English "mindfulness" is Sampajañña. sam = full, pa = full, jañña = knowledge (or awareness).
Another potential candidate is yoniso (to the source) manasikara (minding).
What is pretty clear is that sati does not translate to mindfulness. sati comes from the root /sar, which means to remember or recollect. It doesn't mean to be mindful; translations like "mindfulness of the Buddha" show this to be a silly choice. "remembrance" is probably a better one.
As Bhikkhu Bodhi notes:

Even the word sati, rendered mindfulness, isn’t unproblematic. The word derives from a verb, sarati, meaning “to remember,” and occasionally in Pali sati is still explained in a way that connects it with the idea of memory. But when it is used in relation to meditation practice, we have no word in English that precisely captures what it refers to. An early translator cleverly drew upon the word mindfulness, which is not even in my dictionary. This has served its role admirably, but it does not preserve the connection with memory, sometimes needed to make sense of a passage.
http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Translator.html

And there is a good article on Theravadin that I think agrees with the above both on sati and sampajañña:

By now you will wonder how the term sati became so established as “mindfulness”. Well, mindfulness will be a result of ones practice of noting, especially during the noting…during the seeing. However, the best term translated as mindfulness is in fact a separate pali word called “sam-pajanna“, lit. ‘to know together with’
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/mindfulness-is-not-sati/

I'm not sure that we can say that yoniso manasikara would be an alternative. As I understand it yoniso manasikara is something different. See:
http://www.meditationboonkan.org/Vipassana.htm

I'd go for yoniso-manasikāra the 'wise or reasoned, methodical attention' or 'wise reflection'. Jñaña being more meditative.

According to TamilCube: appamāda, paṭisaṅkhāna
(http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/pali-dictionary.aspx)

Just to answer my own question

appamāda as @Medhini says. This having the quality of heedfulness
atappa giving the sense of ardency

Both these I've got from wikipedia to be honest but I just wanted to complete all the possible translations that I could recall to complete the question

as they recollect and think about that teaching.
So tathā vūpakaṭṭho viharanto taṃ dhammaṃ anussarati anuvitakketi.
At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of
  mindfulness;
Yasmiṃ samaye satisambojjhaṅgo tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhuno āraddho hoti;
SN 46.3

Mindfully they take up & dwell in right view: that’s their right
  mindfulness.
So sato sammādiṭṭhiṃ upasampajja viharati, sāssa hoti sammāsati
MN 117


text:
What are the 10 Bhumis?
Yes, I checked wikipedia. That article is low quality.
These 10 Bhumis are part of the 53 stages of liberation as set out in the Avatamsaka sutra.
The 10 Bhumis for me are completely bemusing. In a path of liberation, I'd expect to find a description of what to do, but the titles of the Bhumis seem to describe results or suggestive adjectives.

The ten Bhumi are stages of enlightenment post initial breakthrough or satori (what I personally equate with stream-entry). As such they are not meant to be comprehensible or serve as instructions for those who did not make it to the first Bhumi yet. They speak about practitioner's relationship with the world as he or she transitions from student's perspective to that of a buddha and teacher.
To get to the first Bhumi, the student must accomplish non-conceptual (experiential) realization of Emptiness. This in its turn requires disbanding the ego -- the main purpose behind the six paramitas and various "humiliating" experiences teacher drives student through.

You may be confirming one of my suspicions, the original author seems to be implying "You aren't going to understand any of this, so I'm just going to elaborate on how awesome the accomplishment of each level is"

This was getting a bit long to be a comment on your question. I'm not sure this is really adequate for an "answer."

The article could be better. If you scan through doing a search on "perfection," it shows that the first six bhumis follow the 6 paramitas. Reading the section on the seventh Bhumi claims that someone at the 7th can practice all the perfections at once. This implies that each bhumi beforehand is the stage at which individual traits are perfected; suggesting someone at the 1st bhumi has perfected generosity.
So the practice manual for reaching each bhumi would be the same as any practice manual or instructions as the Mahayana paramitas. For that, I would point you towards your favorite Lamrim text, as the paramitas are the path of sutra. I'm a fan of Gampopa's "Jewel Ornament of Liberation."

Good point. Now I'll have to go research the connection between lamrim and the 53 stages. Superficially the seem to be different things (other than they can't help put to hit on similar buddhist themes)


text:
Popular culture portrayal of Buddha statues
I have seen Buddha statues in western pop culture that portray an obese man as the Buddha. During my experience with Buddhism I have seen many more statues of the Buddha as a slim man, usually with one hand up, palm out.
Two pictures to illustrate:
Western pop culture portrayal:

More typical eastern portrayal:

I seek an explanation as to the reason for the difference in portrayal, if they are even of the same person.

See http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1399/who-is-the-laughing-buddha

The first statue is not Gautama Buddha (commonly referred to as "the Buddha"), but is Budai, a depiction of a loving and jovial Chinese monk, who is often considered a depiction of Maitreya, the next Buddha who will come into the world eons from now.
Even some of the "skinny" Buddha statues may or may not be an image of Gautama Buddha. It mostly depends on the mudras (position of the hands) and the symbols used in the depiction. For example, usually Gautama Buddha has at least one palm facing inward with his fingers pointed towards the ground, but often today, commercialized statues sold in the west depict him in any kind of way because they do not understand the mudras and symbolism.

Budai or Pu-Tai (Chinese: 布袋; pinyin: Bùdài), or Hotei in Japanese, Bố
  Đại in Vietnamese, is a Chinese folkloric deity. His name means "Cloth
  Sack," and comes from the bag that he is conventionally depicted as
  carrying. He is usually identified with or seen as an incarnation of
  Maitreya, the future Buddha, so much so that the Budai image is one of
  the main forms in which Maitreya is depicted in East Asia. He is
  almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in
  Chinese, the Laughing Buddha (Chinese: 笑佛). Many people in the West
  mistake the image of Budai as being Gautama Buddha.
  -Budai from Wikipedia

So as it seems, it's a misattribution of western culture.
Top one is Budai, the bottom one is Gotama Buddha. But the bottom one is also depicted incorrectly, since the Pāḷi Canon portrays the Buddha as bald (muṇḍaka, "bald-shaven man").

Bottom picture could also be Amitābha who is shown with hair and since Mahāyāna is quite widespread in the West he often gets used to show "some" Buddha

I second the answers already given;
As with many other spiritual teachers, I.E.: Jesus, Mohammed. No resemblance was made during their lifetime. According to some sources the first statues where made in the first century and second century in what is now called Afghanistan and Pakistan. So nobody really knows what he looked like.
Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd35.htm
According to the same site, the sitting version of the statue (the second one you posted), was meant to resemble a bodhisattva called: "Maitreya" and not necessarily Siddhartha Gautama
Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd28.htm
Lastly I want to add that the Buddha has also been incorporated within Hinduism, as one of the reincarnations of Vishnu. So some of the visual representations of the Buddha or not Buddhist at all.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha_in_Hinduism


text:
Purpose of touching tongue to roof of mouth during meditation
While researching forms of meditation involving concentration specific to the Tibetan school of Buddhism, the meditation instruction tells one to touch their tongue to the roof of their mouth when meditating.
Recently, I have been reading a book on Taoism and energy flow, which also instructs the same thing yet for the purpose of completing an energy pathway.
My question:
What is the purpose of touching the tongue to the roof of the mouth when meditating (in concentrated meditation in Tibetan Buddhism)?

I would also welcome some answers/comments about other schools of Buddhism related to this.

As it was explained to me, the purpose is rather mundane. During some kinds of meditation, esp. when one penetrates lower chakras, there is lots of saliva generated, swallowing which can be quite a distraction and interfere with abdominal breathing. Raising the tongue makes most of saliva flow back into the throat instead of filling the mouth.
P.S. in a commentary to ancient Chan text "Lung Chung" (The Brief Precepts) it says that pressing the tongue to the roof of the mouth eliminates the objects of discursive (speech-type) thought.

I have asked a similar question - http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10712/clenching-teeth-and-pressing-tongue-against-roof-of-mouth

The chi channels also connect correctly via this method if one refers to the pictures seen in "Tao & Longevity"

What is the purpose of touching the tongue to the roof of the mouth when meditating

‘Suppose, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, hold back,
  and crush the mind with mind.’
So, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held back,
  crushed the mind with mind. While I did so, sweat ran from my armpits.
It was just as if a strong man, holding a weaker man by the head or shoulders, were to restrain,
  subdue, and attack him;
even so, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held
  back, and crushed the mind with mind, and sweat ran down my armpits.
But although I exerted tireless energy, and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.
But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

Mahā Saccaka Sutta.

If, bhikshus, while the monk is attending to the stilling of the thought-formation, there still arises
  in him bad unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, or with delusion,
  then with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate,
he should subdue, restrain, attack
  the (bad) mind with the (good) mind.
With clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate, those bad unwholesome thoughts are eliminated
  and disappear.
By their elimination, the mind thus stands firm internally, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated.

Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta
Teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against the
palate used to gain unremitting mindfulness in the 1st case during the Bodhisattva's self mortification.  He finds himself only being exhausted by this, but in the latter case it is recommended as the last resort action drive out unwholesome thoughts.

The technique is not peculiar to Tibetian Buddhism, it's also used in Zen practice -- How To Practice Zen Meditation? says,

Head And Neck
  Whatever the position you choose to adopt, make sure that your back and neck stay as straight as possible. Pull your chin in a little to erect the neck and try to “push the sky” with the top of your head. Do not be too tensed or too relaxed while you do this; try to find balance in your posture. Keep your mouth closed during zazen; your teeth should be together, and your tongue should be against the roof of your mouth just behind your teeth.

(The above is just an extract, see the link for other detail).

Many meditation techniques work by over riding the autonomic nervous system. I find this technique effective at 'thought stopping'. Like many meditation practices you must practice the technique to benefit.


text:
Green Tara Light?
Recently, I heard a Tibetan nun Venerable Robin Courtin mention on a video that a meditator saw a green light while meditating.   She mentioned it was associated with Green Tara.   What is the green light for the Green Tara about?

Courtesy of gardenofthefareast

In the theory of Five Buddha Families, green light is associated with Karma-family, which is where Green Tara comes from.
The family of Karma-Buddhas, green, in its neurotic aspect stands for a tendency to see imperfections everywhere, to get stuck in analysis-paralysis, to overestimate one's game skills while staying on the sidelines, to feel like one is missing out or falling behind on all the myriad things going on in the world. In its enlightened aspect the same energy manifests as all-accomplishing compassionate action: clearly seeing what needs to be done, and doing it on the spot with no hesitation, without worrying about other things one could do.
As Chogyam Trunpa explained, the point of generation-stage meditation is not as much to visualize the deity's external form, as it is to generate the mood of the deity. In this sense, green color would stand for the mood of compassionate action, either healing/protection or destroying, depending on whether it is the peaceful or the wrathful form that we're generating. Because Tara is a peaceful form, in this case green would represent the soothing energy of protecting from danger and repairing the damage, similar to what a good nurse projects at a panicking patient.


text:
Can personal experience generate buddhistic insight outside of meditation?
This is a question formed from an anecdotal experience, if this means that it is unsuitable for this format, I have no problem with it being removed.
Specifically, after seeing the news about a mass shooter, shooting out of jealousy; I felt a temporarily release from any jealousy I had myself. Can this be actual insight according to Theravada sources?

The insight comes in more if you were able to understand WHY you did that as opposed to that it actually happened.

Well, I read the "manifesto" of the shooter and the main thing that stuck with me was how tainted his thinking had become. He started hating his loved ones even to point of contemplating killing his brother. It was as if I finally understood how destructive envy could be and I didn't want to be part of that.

I might be digressing but maybe this can offer some insight: an average person seems as delusional to someone who has subdued their ego as that kid seems to an average person.

There is nothing that is not meditation.

@user1167442 Can you elaborate? To me this sounds similar to someone saying, "sitting on the couch eating potato chips is a form of exercise."

Yeah ... There's that... But that's an interpretation designed to miss the point.  Insight arises in the present - where else are you?

Wow, some tough answers and comments here. If something leads you toward realization, it is good. If it leads away (including yesterday's "good thing") it is bad. "Do what works". Just try not to kill too many people along the way : )

It seems appropriate to turn my comments into an answer.
One of the problems that confounds religious practice in all major traditions is the attachment to words.  Words are both the barrier to understanding and the only tools available to teachers (for the most part) to point people towards awakening.
Insight is defined as:

an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, especially
  through intuitive understanding
penetrating mental vision or discernment; faculty of seeing into inner character or underlying truth.

dictionary.com
There is no such thing as Buddhistic Insight (how does one know if their insight is Buddhistic?)  If insight depended on the teachings of Buddha or anyone else, then Buddha would've been unable to attain insight; Christ would not have come to know what he did; etc.
Buddha, Christ, and any other teacher (no names spring to mind) of their caliber and effectiveness found a way of creating a teaching in the language of their era that resonated with the existing social and religious beliefs of their era.  I think this is a critical distinction.
Buddha spoke about reincarnation as he built his teaching in a part of the world where almost all people already had a view of the world that included reincarnation - and many were likely attached to that understanding. As far as I know, Christ never mentions reincarnation - at least not in any form that remotely resembles the Buddhist or Hindu view of reincarnation.
Buddha found a way to use the already existing teaching as a vehicle to point people towards the Self.  (see skillful means)
Christ did the same.
As to the original question.

One need not necessarily depend on the words of the ancients, but must only think of what is really true. - Dogen

Think about the paradox of your question.  You experienced something you call temporarily release from any jealousy I had.  That's awesome!
Unfortunately, the validation you were likely looking for with your question will probably do nothing other than serve as a barrier to your understanding.  You will have a new 'idol' to worship:
"I had a genuine Buddhistic insight."
Regarding the above quote from Dogen in relation to this: What is true is, you can and will never know.  Why carry the insight along with you?  The insight will be valuable to the degree you use it - or let it use you.  What is it you got when you felt the jealousy dissipate?  Did you suddenly see the vanity and stupidity of human actions in a clearer light?  That is what there is to meditate on; to consider.  Who cares where it came from?
There is great wisdom in your insight, and there is no bottom to it.  The deeper your insight penetrates, the deeper your understanding will be.  Genuine mastery is never a place one arrives but a place one comes from.
Enjoy your insights but never cling to them.  Yesterday's insight is today's ego trip.

Thank you for your answer, I think you are right in many ways.

It's similar to going to a funeral, seeing the dead body and realizing that your turn is coming too. Jealousy is a subset of aversion. Aversion is 1 of the 3 evil roots that causes suffering. So if you realized that and got rid of your jealousy, that's inline with Buddhist insight.

Yes, people are known to reach enlightenment and even full liberation without any knowledge of Buddhism or use of teachers and guides.
In my opinion, thinking, "What I practice is the only way," is a form of pride and a way for people to hold themselves above others.

Attaining enlightenment without any knowledge of Buddhism(Dhamma) is technically impossible.

@Sankha Kulathantille Agree to disagree.

Even a Pacceka Buddha has to realize the Four Noble truth to become enlightened. The Four Noble Truths belong to the Dhamma.

@user70 your answer intrigues me, do you have any sources for that claim?

@DirkM Pratyekabuddha. The wikipedia article  says they "arise only in ages where there is no Buddha and the Buddhist teachings are lost." I have seen where people claim the teachings only need to be corrupted. Also it is debatable whether we are in a dhamma ending age or not.

@Sankha Kulathantille My view is that you are correct that the four noble truths belong to the dhamma but I believe someone could follow the four noble truths without ever being taught them.

One need not necessarily depend on the words of the ancients, but must only think of what is really true. - Dogen

I recommend taking the discussion to chat, as comments are really just for clarification and may be deleted.


text:
Jhāna in the different branches of Buddhism
From what I have read it seems the different branches seem to treat the subject quite different. While Mahayana texts seem to avoid directly touching the subject and only describe the effects, the Theravāda tradition seems almost obsessed with Jhāna.
Are there really such big differences?

The word jhāna is Pali, so it stands to reason you wouldn't hear about it directly in other traditions. What you should be looking for are the following:
Sanskrit: dhyāna
Chinese: Chán (simplified Chinese: 禅; traditional Chinese: 禪)
Japanese: Zen (禅)
As far as differences go, I'm not sure which you are referring to, but I once skimmed through a collection of modern Buddhist writings on samadhi and found that none of the authors seemed able to agree on what meditation or jhāna meant. It differs from monastery to monastery, let alone tradition to tradition.


text:
Is Buddhism in a worldwide decline?
I was listening to a podcast a while ago and it stated that Buddhism worldwide is in decline. I found that surprising. Is that true? Does anyone have any references or better still statistics to prove or disprove that.

From my reading on Buddhist history-- Buddhist in places where it was numerically most successful it was as state religion. Tibet, Mongolia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Japan, Korea-- all of these places, no more state support, sometimes quite the opposite! The institutions are slowing responding.

Part of the problem with measuring the number of practicing Buddhists depends on how you define "practicing" and "Buddhist". Plus the world population has grown dramatically so the percentage of Buddhists may decline but the number of Buddhists may increase. This is especially true in the west where Buddhist principles are practiced by an unknown number of people with no affiliation with monastery, meditation centers or other organized Buddhist centers. The polls do not count people who participate in a regular practice that have a previous affiliation with a group but who now cannot or do not

I found several interesting Wiki pages:
This one gives a basic idea about the growth as a comparison between 1910 and 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion
This is the List of religious population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
This one gives the population groth rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth_rate
By briefly analysing all of the above, I feel like Buddhism is decline according to the statistics.
Further found this article which gives a projections for the Next 200 Years :
http://www.wnrf.org/cms/print_next200.shtml
According to it from 1900 to 2025 Buddhist world wide % changed ( and will be change) from 7.8% to 5.7%.
Although it sound like depressing, please think as a Buddhists this is quite expected and all align with Buddhist teaching. Going forward, It is quite clear that world is not going be a better place than today. As people moving more towards to materialism, consumerism they tends to distract from the reality. So be mindful and practice the Dhamma.

According to the commentaries, Buddha Sasana will last 5000 years. That means about another 2400+ years.
In the 1st millennium, there were Arahaths with special Jhanic powers. In the 2nd millennium, there were Arahaths with no specials powers. In the 3rd millennium, i.e. at present, it's said that there are only Anagami Sangha at most. In the 4th millennium, there will be Sakadagami Sangha at most. In the 5th, there will be Sothapanna Sangha at most. At the end, monks won't even be wearing robes. They will wear ordinary clothes and will just use a yellow string to indicate that they are monks.

You know that wasn't the sort of answer that I was expecting but absolutely - the decline is spoken about within the texts themselves +1

Yes, declining! But enough Dhamma is preserved for you to attain enlightenment. You just need to work harder since the Buddha is no more. Most of the beings who could easily attain enlightenment had already attained it during Buddha's time.

Where Is this all found in the pali cannon?

It's in the commentaries as far as I know. Don't have a link to provide at this time.

There is similar kind of comments in the White Lotus Sutra about the decline of Buddhism. Not sure where this exact quote is from

The 5000 year prediction is given in both Manorathapurani commentary and Sampasadaniya sutta commentary.

In addition to the other answers, I believe there is a global decline in many major religions as you can see in this Google trends graph.

I would argue that especially in the western countries choice and interest of religion is subject to change, e.g., due to trends and/or major events.

Out of interest - why didn't you include Islam in the graph? It is also a major religion...

@Rabbit I am sorry. But the resulting graph wouldn't have shown the downwards curve as good as this (due to "zooming out"). Also I do believe the fact that there are way more results implies that many are not religion related per se

The fact that less people type a name of a religion into Google might simply be a result of people using Google differently. Today people search a lot more targeted.

Main aspect leading to Buddhist decline or growth as per The Dharma-ending Age
:

the admission of women into the monastic community;
the lack of respect toward various elements of the Buddhist tradition;
the lack of diligence in meditation practice;
carelessness in the transmission of the teachings;
the emergence of divisions within the Sangha;
the emergence of false or “counterfeit” Dharma; and
excessive association with secular society.

Later texts also mention external causes of the religion’s decline of which there are two:

the invasion of India by foreign, non-Buddhist powers; and
excessive state control.

Out of these we already see many elements today. So naturally Buddhism is in the decline. The way to get over this decline can be as follows:

Every Buddhist should operative the 4 frame of mindfulness diligently to attack 3
Should teach this diligently and sharing Dhamma realized empirically to attack 2
Should try to source as much from the Suttas strengthened though empirical understanding to attack 4 and 6
Be mindful of the Vinaya and how the Sangha is organised without trying to bring variations 5, 7 and 2
Look at the Dhamma as it is without a mixing personal or cultural beliefs to attack 2 and 7

In the modern age of world-wide education & science, all religions that have superstitious beliefs will inevitably fall into decline (statistically). Asian cultural 'Buddhism' is no different to Western Christianity or Judaism. Many Asian cultural Buddhists will stop believing in unknowable superstitious ideas (such as 'reincarnation-rebirth' & external 'heavens & hells') & thus reject (what they believe) Buddhism (to be).
The Buddhist scriptures (such as MN 95) report the Buddha criticised religions that adhere to blind faith yet, since that time, Buddhism has become the same. For example, today, there are famous teachers that will insist you cannot be a Buddhist if you do not believe in post-mortem-rebirth.

"Master Gotama, with regard to the ancient hymns of the brahmans —
  passed down through oral transmission & included in their canon — the
  brahmans have come to the definite conclusion that "...this is
  true..." What does Master Gotama have to say to this?"
"Tell me, Bharadvaja, is there among the brahmans even one brahman who
  says, 'This I know; this I see...this is true..'"
"No, Master Gotama."
the Dhamma... is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil,
  refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by
  the wise..

I speculate Buddhism only historically grew as a cultural religion due to a change of emphasis towards 'rebirth-reincarnation' (which was also the primary reason why Buddhism became extinct in India due to it becoming undifferentiatable from Hinduism). Therefore, it is inevitable cultural Buddhism declines for the same reason that it grew; in that it was never ever True Buddhism.
In conclusion, (in ordinary circumstances) the True Dhamma will not decline since those that comprehend Ultimate Knowable Truth do not change their convictions.

I don't have statistics for you but I do want to point a few things out to give you hope against the dire (skillful means) predictions of a Dharma Ending Age:

Statistics lie. There must be a huge amount of "unnanounced Buddhists" who practice meditation with the quest for Awakening (freedom from suffering). This to me qualifies as Buddhist, especially because some of these "untracked" people spend far more hours in the day practicing the essence of Buddhism than those affiliated to a softcore branch of Buddhism.. I myself am one of those people who announces themselves as multiple religions/none.
Buddhism is more of a spiritual lifestyle than a '-ism'. Therefore anyone of any religion can practice it in the cover of their communal Abrahamic (or otherwise) religion.
Buddhism can never die. The quest for freedom and happiness will never end and due to the information age, the Buddhist teachings/suttas are forever preserved even if a major portion of humanity is decimated.

So long as you yourself are interested in Buddhism for its life-benefitting knowledge, you can be sure many others are, too.