text:
What is happening to Lord Buddha after "parinirvana"?
We all know that after Lord Buddha's parinirvana, he will never be born again. So my question is, if Lord Buddha does not have a rebirth after parinirvana, what is actually happening to him (after death)?

Nothing
Because there is no person to happen anything, and there is no samsara. So that's The End. When a person achieves nirvana , there is no person anymore. Death is not the end of a person, nirvana is. After achieving nirvana, 'he' can help others to achieve nirvana , and just wait for the physical death.

SN 22.85 Yamaka Sutta supports your answer. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html

@lasan {After achieving nirvana, 'he' can help others to achieve nirvana , and just wait for the physical death.} Is your analogy self-contradicting? 'he' is 'non-being'? Who has this 'physical' who 'wait' who is 'dead'? In the Lotus Sutra, numberless of Bodhisattvas suddenly appeared reported that they were all taught by Buddha Shakyamuni then were questioned, for Buddha only taught 49 years it's impossible to enlighten so many. Buddha answered he has been teaching since eons of time. How do you interpret this?

@Dhammadhatu I seldom read En sutras. I read your link, thanks. I found this "a monk with no more effluents" in the passage. It's uncertain to me that the Anāśraya (無漏) being translated to 'effluents'...? Dictionary> effluents: liquid waste or sewage discharged... But it's not just about 'waste discharged', it's about dissipate of energy, end of Kleshas (煩惱). If one just read this without understanding the comprehensive Buddhist teaching, it's so easy to misconstrue.

Not sure 'nothing' is technically correct. Nothing is annihalationism, it requires a subject to make sense. 'no thing' is preferable imo.. The two are subtly different - the former creates a construct, the latter denies them in their entirety.

'And yet, Socrates, said Parmenides, if a man, fixing his attention on these and the like difficulties, does away with ideas of 'things' and will not admit that every individual thing has its own determinate idea, which is always one and the same, he will have no thing on which his mind can rest; and so he will utterly destroy his power of reasoning, as you seem to me to have particularly noted.' - Plato's Parmenides

I am not as knowledgeable in these matters as many others I see in this Exchange, but it seems to me that the answer to this question might fall under the categories of the 14 Unanswered Questions #'s 11-14 - Pali Canon or the 16 Unwise Reflections - Sabbasava Sutta. (Although the latter seems to focus on self reflection and, so, may not apply to reflections on others).
If that is the case, the question may not have an answer from the Buddha.
I'd appreciate correction if my answer is without merit.

It is something undeclared by The Buddha.
These four views are undeclared by The Buddha:

After death a Tathāgata exists
After death a Tathāgata does not exist
After death a Tathāgata both exists & does not exist
After death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would
  describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed,
  made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development,
  not destined for future arising.
Freed from the classification of
  consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to
  fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear'
  doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither
  reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." (Aggi-Vacchagotta
  Sutta, MN 72)

"If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus
  released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that
  would be mistaken; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'...
  that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'...
  that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is
  his view, that would be mistaken.
Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of
  the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of
  the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of
  the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent
  of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves:
  Having directly known that, the monk is released. [To say that,] 'The
  monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know
  is his opinion,' that would be mistaken." (Maha-nidana Sutta, DN 15)

So it is unknown, unanswered, or undeclared what happens to the Tathagata after death.

+1 - It seems to me the Buddha does explain this in the extracts you quote, and in exactly the the same way as Nagarjuna. The true nature of Reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and all positive or extreme views woud be wrong.

The question is based on an invalid framework! There was no 'him' in the first place. When the cause of the future arising of the 5 aggregates has been eliminated, there will be no more arising.

Enlightenment (Bodhi) is awakening to a different perspective, in which everything is interconnected and alive, constantly flowing and transforming but never getting born and never dying.

Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released.
But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?
"Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply.
In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear.
"Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply.
...
Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this Dharma, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.
...
Any identity by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned ... Freed from identity, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply.

Nothing. That's THE END ! His conscience is gone, and there's nothing left of him. That's the meaning of parinibbana.

examine the nature of the question;
"What happens?"
It is really difficult to answer a "what happens?" even when one talks about the nature of things as we know it.
If you see an apple then seeing happens. What is the seeing then exactly? Whatever we think seeing ultimately is, well it isn't that because seeing is not thinking. Nor can it be explained in terms of other sensory perception and however it is expressed it is only an expression.
As a matter of fact we can't really talk about a reality beyond the six classes of perception because we don't understand reality in terms of anything other than those very classes of perception.
If this is understood then one can understand that whatever it is that appears to happen in this life is an expression of causes and conditions for it's appearance.
Parinibbana disignates the complete extinguishing of causes and conditions for the appearance of the various classes of perception which make up our reality.
That is as far as we can go in this reality and beyond this point our reality ends.
What is not included in the Allness of the All can not be explained in terms of something included in the Allness of the All.

[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading
  of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, &
  intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies
  non-objectification.[1] The statement, '... is it the case that there
  is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not
  anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not
  anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six
  contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far
  objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With
  the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there
  comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html

In other words one can't really pin down the existence of a being even in this life;

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
  change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Is perception constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
  change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in
  form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than
  feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In
  fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?...
  Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
  form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
  feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
  consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth
  or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare,
  'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man,
  attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described
  otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after
  death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after
  death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only
  stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

This is clearly answered by Itivuttaka 44 with excellent commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (see Note1)
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (see Note2)
Commentary (Note1 and Note2) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining
  (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
  flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
  fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
  here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is
  still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do
  not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
  arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
  here or anywhere else. For a discussion of this point, see The Mind
  Like Fire Unbound, pp. 21-37.

No detailed description is available for one's state after parinirvana.
However, please note that budhha who had attained all the Jhanas preferred parinirvana.
Realm of neither perception nor no perception (last Jhanas) can be described as state of permanent ecstasy. Even for this state it is hard to find detailed description.
We can imagine that parinirvana will be beyond description.

People should stop this type of questions. I am no expert but unless you experience the thing they call nirvana or anything close to that, you'll never understand anything about that. People here can give you all their interpretations but that would only they can give you that much.


text:
significance of buddhism in this age of terrorism tyrannies and insolence
i would like to know the answer to the question from your point of view:
what is the significance of buddhism in this age of terrorism, tyrannies and insolence?

It's all about money and power
In modern world , almost everything happens according to money and power. So people and governments try to have money and power . Some people try to get those by force. We call them terrorists . And there are terrorist governments as well. There is a huge competition nowadays to be the richest or the most powerful.
But why...
Let's ask why those things happen. There is one simple answer. Greed.
It is one of the worst qualities one can have , greed drives people crazy. Never ending desires , anger , jealousy and suffering , everything above is happening because of greed .
So according to Buddhism, we have to get rid of greed , then only we will be able to create a better world than this. We have to make ourselves better first, if everyone thought it that way , the whole community will be better eventually, we can't change government, we can't change the world, only way we can change the way world works is to change ourselves. To do that Buddhism will help a lot. Everyone should follow the path to nirvana. If we all did this , those cruelty, terrorism and rudeness will fade away.

The significance of Buddhism is the same as it ever was. The modern age is nothing special unless we believe it is and belief is the problem according to the Buddha's teaching.
We have beliefs, opinions, religions  and assumptions that we cling to and they causes borders, wars and terrorism.
Buddhism ideally teaches us the difference between our assumptions and beliefs and What is arising in one's present moment experience.
Buddhists have beliefs of course but the idea is to understand the difference of what is and what is conceptual. This understanding is a big part of what will lead one to less suffering.The more we understand, the less greed, anger, ignorance and suffering we have until we are liberated.
Buddhism teaches that the purest truth is found in each one's individual experience and not so much in a system of government.

Buddhism has within it a vision for a perfect world. However Buddhism has never had the agenda to create a perfect world because Buddhism comprehends the majority of the world is immersed in ignorance & the world is ruled by 'gods' (the tyrants) that hoodwink the people to finance via taxation, vote for, fight & die in their wars (as shown in the top left triangle of the picture).

For example, most Western people cannot even see that it is their own governments & their political allies that are financing & arming the terrorists for economic & political aims.

Thus Buddhism states:

170. One who looks upon the world as a bubble and a mirage, him the King of Death sees not.
171. Come! Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it
58. Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.
59. Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.
Dhammapada

For example, only last week did President Obama waive the US Arms Export Act so weapons of murder & death could be freely sold to terrorists fighting for US goals in Syria.

December 8, 2016
Presidential Determination No. 2017-05
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SUBJECT: Presidential Determination and Waiver Pursuant to Section 2249a of Title 10, United States Code, and Sections 40 and 40A of the
  Arms Export Control Act to Support U.S. Special Operations to Combat
  Terrorism in Syria
I hereby: determine that the transaction, encompassing the provision of defense articles and services to foreign forces, irregular forces,
  groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing
  U.S. military operations to counter terrorism in Syria, is essential
  to the national security interests of the United States.
Presidential Determination No. 2017-05

The terrorists are funded by US political allies & both the USA and the terrorists have caused a refugee crisis in Europe from lands (Libya & Syria) destroyed by the USA, NATO, its Wahhabi allies & the terrorists. Yet most Western people still believe the terrorists are Muslims that hate the West.

Al Qaeda’s Abdelhakim Belhadj poses with US Senator John McCain. McCain’s lobbying would play a part in securing Al Qaeda and its
  affiliates with sufficient arms to overthrow the secular government of
  Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Soon after, these terrorists and their
  weapons would find their way to Syria via NATO-member Turkey.

There are even Western Buddhist monks (here) that greive when the war maker Hilary Clinton loses the election in favour of Donald Trump who at least said America should not be supporting wars in Syria & the Middle East. One of the rationales of this monk was Mr Trump did not support abortion for women.

Posted on November 9, 2016 by Bhikkhu Bodhi
It was with feelings of shock and dismay that early this morning I woke up to learn that Donald Trump had been elected president of the
  United States.

When people are so easily fooled like this, including by Western Buddhist monks, change cannot occur & danger cannot be escaped.
Since as Buddhists we cannot make war, we must prepare for the worst & learn to let go.

The Dhamma-Sacca of Samatha-Vipassana for the Nuclear Age
The nuclear age form of Dhamma prepares all people to face the events of our nuclear era: events of war and events of peace. It also
  prepares us for the general events in the daily lives of human beings.
  In the case of war, if nuclear war occurs, what sort of Dhamma will
  enable the mind to face such horrible dangers and punishment? With
  peace, what knowledge is needed regarding this situation in which
  there is still this nuclear age kind of peace?
Nowadays, what are people doing that we call this "The Nuclear Age"? They can go up to the moon, circle it, land on it, and come back to
  earth. They can send vehicles to look at, explore, and go beyond the
  planets.
Obviously, this kind of progress leads to strange and powerful results. In Dhamma language, we call these results atimahantaramana
  (ati, extreme; mahanta, great; aramana, things known or felt, things
  which strike or make contact). They are sense objects that powerfully
  strike the mind in the form of dukkha (suffering). Why don't we take a
  happier view of the situation? Because that's impossible. Material
  progress that leads people to be infatuated with sensual pleasure and
  stimulation blocks the way to peace. Even though we may be enjoying
  some delicious sensual pleasures now, such sense experiences support
  and increase defilement (kilesa), especially the defilement of
  selfishness. With selfishness reaching extreme levels, there's no
  peace in sight. Therefore, we can see only these undesirable things
  that we have created.
In this nuclear age, such dangers can come at any time. Although we may have parents and children, it's as if we had no one. Then who will
  help us? What will help? I think that Dhamma will help us, which means
  the Buddha will help us.
Realize aniccam, dukkham and anatta (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self). Realize sunnata (voidness,
  selflessness), tathata (thusness), and then idappaccayata
  (conditionality). Penetrate to these realizations with every
  exhalation and inhalation - that's the most important issue. That's
  what's best, having Dhamma that keeps one calm and quiet in all
  circumstances.
Samatha-Vipassana for the Nuclear Age

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If someone says publicly that he has achieved nirvana , can it be true?
When you achieve nirvana , you have given up yourself. There is no person anymore. But my question is , if someone says publicly that he is arahant, is there a possibility that it can be true?

Was there ever a person?

From a Theravada perspective, the answer is probably "no".
While not being a sutta, the Milindapanha states if a layperson attains to Arahatship they either ordain as a monk or die.
If the layperson Arahant ordains as monk, the Vinaya forbids them making a public declaration.

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed.
Page 263

As for the Buddha & monks that declared arahantship in the Pali suttas, if they used the personal pronoun "I", they were only speaking in conventional language. Refer to SN 1.25.

Maybe it's not possible for an arahant that is a monastic, because it is appropriate for monastics to follow the monastic rules (which discourage saying such a thing in public).
An arahant has no attachment to ego so it isn't as though a lay arahant's public proclamation of enlightenment would cause the arahant any bad karma. An arahant would need an appropriate reason to make such a claim though. Maybe there could never be an appropriate reason to make such a claim; or maybe there could be an appropriate reason, as simple as someone asking the arahant, "How's your meditation practice going"?
Metta :)

@ChrisW Right on Chris :) I should put what I post through some kind of grammar checking app.

It was very good. I only edited it because you had posted a comment, which asked for the punctuation to be edited.

Buddha has said that an Enlightened person doesn't go and cling with the self. So they don't have any attachment to self. But a inAn10.92`  the Buddha has clearly mentioned the following.

Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “When, for a disciple of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble method, then if he wants he may state about himself: ‘Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!’

So an Enlightened person, can say that I'm enlightenment to another person for the sake of showing that person the path of enlightenment

Depends on the achievement of nirvana, either monk or not, in case of sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami,arahant, if they say with good intention, it is ok referring to Thera Theri Apadana. GOOD INTENTION means not for fame, not for offerings , only for the laymen to follow the proper path of Magga and attain nirvana.

Mr/Mrs Larn,
Why not? "Off (good) cause" there are reasons why not and on (good) course reasons why.
It's rather foolish to say that an awakened would not share past merits if conuctive or would anybody saw the Buddha him self lived a paradox?
Since an Arahat (especially) would not "claim" such for certain low puposes, not to speak of evil, he might not violate even a precept or rule (how could he?)
For example a clear indication that such sharing of merits are not bad at first hand but has rather to do with generaly issa in certain communities believing equanimity is the highes virtue:

Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. So the Blessed One said to Ven. Sariputta: "Sariputta, when you know of a householder clothed in white, that he is restrained in terms of the five training rules and that he obtains at will, without difficulty, without hardship, four pleasant mental abidings in the here & now, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'1 ...Gihi Sutta: The Householder

[Feel personal always invited to share such merits here: "Ich bin ein Stromgewinner!" - "I am a stream-winner!"]
A maybe extended answer and also further questions and discussion can be done and found here: [Q&A] If someone says publicly that he has achieved nirvana , can it be true ?
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial use or other purposes for wordily gains.)

No one can declare that one cannot say he/she has achieved nirvana. Didn't lord Buddha declare that he achieved nibbana? If some one has achieved nirvana don't he/she has to declare it to others in order to teach them about the correct path to nirvana? If you say 'no', then how can he/she guide others to the nirvana?
Thus it will depend on the person whether to declare it on public or not. No one can thoroughly say 'no'.

The Buddha left the Dhamma as the guide. Regards

Yes. Buddhism is a phylosophy. And what Lord Buddha taught has ruined by people.but we should be able to distinguish between what is correct and what is not. We should not accept something by the means of someone said or saying it. We must be wiser to understand it

The only way to know the True Dhamma is by testing it. But if a person is an unsuitable student, nobody can help. That is why it is not required for anyone to declare they have reached Nibbana.

But that's a choice. What if Lord Buddha didn't declare his enlightenment? Will you and me plus others talk about these things?

Yes, the Buddha declared it but monks today do not have to declare it because the Buddha declared it. Regards

Is now Lord Buddha alive?

If you are enlightened, today, you understand which scriptures are genuine. All you need to do to guide other people is to show them which scriptures are valid & explain the meaning of those scriptures if there is a problem with the common translations. This is why the Buddha said: "The Dhamma I leave you will be your teacher" & why an enlightened person today only needs to point to the Buddha's Dhamma (teaching) rather than declare they are enlightened. An unenlightened person cannot actually know if another's declaration is true. People can only test the teachings to see if they work.

So i am asking whether today's people are following what Lord Buddha taught.( that to take Damma as the guide)

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


text:
Why Lord Buddha didn't stay alive till the end of this "Kalpa"
I have heard that Lord Buddha once told Ananda thero that a Buddha can live till the end of a Kalpa, if he wishes so. He did this because he wanted Ananda thero to invite him to live till the end of the Kalpa.
But, Ananda thero did not invite him as Maaraya was inside his head.
My question is, if Lord Buddha was able to read minds and see future, why did he asked that question in the first place ?
Why didn't he lived till the end of this Kalpa himself ?
What I am missing here ?

The Buddha did not ask venerable Ananda to invite him to extend his life. He only hinted that it is possible for him to do so.

Mara's Appeal

And when the Venerable Ananda had gone away, Mara, the Evil One, approached the Blessed One. And standing at one side he spoke to the
Blessed One, saying: "Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his
final passing away; let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has
come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and
bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples —
wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma,
living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct,
and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach
it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and
make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able
to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and
liberating Dhamma.' [23]

"And now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have become the Blessed One's disciples in just this way. So, O Lord,
let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! The time has come
for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught
by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and
widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.' And this
too has come to pass in just this way. So, O Lord, let the Blessed One
come to his final passing away, let the Happy One utterly pass away!
The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord."
......................................................
-Maha Parinibbana Sutta

Buddhas do as they proclaim, so once the Sasana is well established, the lord would not extend life without an invitation as Buddhas do not have the desire to live on. Besides, venerable Ananda was the one attending to the Buddha. So it is only proper that the Buddha hinted it to him. Also, it was always going to be someone who has not yet attained Arahanthship that should invite the Buddha to stay on as Arahanths have already achieved what needs to be achieved and do not require the Buddha to stay.
Buddhists do not believe in determinism. The future is not fixed in all situations. Only some things can be predicted to happen for sure. The Mara stopping venerable Ananda from inviting the Buddha was not destined to happen. He would have invited if he was able to overcome Mara at that time.
In any case, the word Kalpa here means an Ayu-Kalpa. Which means the Buddha would have lived 120 years at most, even if ven. Ananda had invited.

+1 for the last paragraph :-)

@Sankha Kulathantille {Which means the Buddha would have lived 120 years at most, even if ven. Ananda had invited.} This is disputed. The Buddha, in the sutras, addressed as Tathagata, what does it mean? Kalpa is a transitory measured by time. Tathagata however, "This is interpreted as signifying that the Tathāgata is beyond all coming and going – beyond all transitory phenomena." - wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81gata

"beyond all transitory phenomena" means he has attained Nibbana. It does not mean that the Karma resultant 5 aggregates are going to last forever

@SankhaKulathantille Buddha was addressed, proclaimed the Tathagata when he achieved perfect enlightenment - anuttara-samyak-sambodhi; he was addressed by students Tathagata during the sermons, check the sutras, Pali if that's your reference. Nibbana is not a word that could be (= "beyond all transitory phenomena") and sent off. I'm concerned that those incorrect explanations, personal opinions polluted the Dharma.

I think you follow Mahayana or a derivation of it which we don't consider as the Dhamma in the Theravada tradition. Nibbana by definition is uncaused and beyond all transitory phenomena. That's why it's called Lokuttara

Why didn't he lived till the end of this Kalpa himself ?

1st, the life-expectancy for human at this kalpa of this period is 100, Buddha lived till 80, which is within and fits in, to set example that a human can reach enlightenment, same as Buddha who is a human. 2nd, Buddha gave a metaphor in the Lotus Sutra, that a loving father (Buddha) in making his sons (students) to take the curing medicine (Dharma), feigning his death.

...if Lord Buddha was able to read minds and see future, why did he asked that question in the first place ?

To honour the Law of Karma, Buddha would not interfere with the course of events, for any intervention with a subjective purpose is going to flush away by the force of Karma, creates reactions, like an equation with only one correct answer. Thus to "see future", "read minds" is not applicable in this.
Buddha had hinted this 3 times to Ananda, however, Ananda missed all the chances. Then Mara Papman appeared and requested His nirvana, He accepted. Thus chances were given to Ananda, who the sum of all we students on the path of cultivation, a representative of all of us. The path to enlightenment is the overcoming of our nivāraṇa and Mara Papman by ourselves, Buddha could show you the way, but he couldn't do it for you. Thus Ananda must overcome Mara Papman to request Buddha's staying on. To staying on or to enter nirvana is the same to Buddha, who's no longer bound by life/death, black/white, cold/hot... but He will response to request. Same as, if you read the sutras, it always begins with a question asked by someone (Ananda was always the one initiated the teaching), then Buddha answered...


text:
Why did first gerneration followers of Gautama Buddha chose oral method instead of written verbal method to preserve his teachings?
According to this wikipedia article on Gautama Buddha,

Accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.

Why were the teachings of Buddha not preserved in writings by his first generation of followers? In other words, what is the reason for adopting an oral method instead of written verbal method?

I don't know but maybe writing hadn't been invented there yet (or not introduced from elsewhere), or at least it wasn't common.
Wikipedia says,

First appearance of writing in the Indian Subcontinent
The first introduction of writing to the Indian Subcontinent apart from the Bronze Age Indus script, which is undeciphered and may not be an actual script, is mostly identified as the Edicts of Ashoka from c. 250 BCE.

The same is true of Hindu texts, i.e. the earliest records of writing dates from a couple of hundred years after the Buddha,

Sanskrit -- Origin_and_development
The earliest attested Sanskrit texts are religious texts of the Rigveda, from the mid-to-late second millennium BCE. No written records from such an early period survive, if they ever existed.

The article on Brahmi script says,

Brahmi (brāhmī) is the modern name given to one of the oldest writing systems used in South and Central Asia during the final centuries BCE and the early centuries CE. ... The origin of the script is still much debated, with most scholars concurring that Brahmi was derived from or at least influenced by one or more contemporary Semitic scripts, while others favoring the idea of an indigenous origin or connected to the much older and as-yet undeciphered Indus script.

So, who knows, perhaps that kind of writing was introduced via the Alexandrian empire.

The really basic answer is that the subcontinent had a longstanding oral tradition stretching back to at least 1200BC, which can be determined from linguistic analysis of the Rig Veda.. Just common practice until about 300-200BC probably!

I have a great hunch as to why:

You don't need writing for survival, you need food, water, and shelter for survival
Reading/Writing consumes many resources (The Buddha was against destroying plant life)
Evidence shows that reading causes headaches, nausea, and myopia indicating that our brain was never specified for reading and writing
The achievement of arahantship does not rely on reading/writing but instead on the ending of mental fermentations
Illiterate people can learn and accomplish the same things as literate people learning orally or with images or video
Oral recitations may benefit self-discipline, memory, and concentration
Learning things orally consumes very few resources and doesn't require that someone know how to read/write
The Buddha predicted that the pure dhamma would disappear within 500 years...no amount of writing things down would've changed that

For me personally I notice that I can remember most things much better if I orally recite it a few times rather than if I try to visually memorize it so oral recitations are really useful for me. I had memorized many things this way like my credit card numbers, driver's license number, etc...
I also think that humans in general may learn many things better without writing (learning orally, using images, video, or through experience). So it may be a good direction for society to abandon writing or lessen the use of writing in the future.
Just imagine if you achieved arahantship would writing things down really help anyone out in achieving arahantship (the ending of mental fermentations)? It's experience vs. reading. Would reading archery books (with no images, video, etc...) cause someone to become an excellent archer or would the actual experience of practicing archery cause someone to become an excellent archer?
In many conditions reading something won't matter or help much at all whereas experience really matters (for everything in general).
I notice that even if I give exact precise instructions a lot of people still won't get it or achieve anything.
So it makes sense to me that The Buddha didn't care about writing things down.
In the future since a food/water crisis seems likely writing may be abandoned or only reserved for some few. We're cutting down trees and using lots of resources on literacy and reading/writing instead of on food, water, and shelter.
The difference between literate vs. illiterate is oral vs. written. That's really it.
Remember in the Dhammapada The Buddha says:

"Much though he recites the sacred texts, but acts not
  accordingly, that heedless man is like a cowherd who only counts the
  cows of others — he does not partake of the blessings of the holy
  life.
Little though he recites the sacred texts, but puts the Teaching into practice, forsaking lust, hatred, and delusion, with true wisdom
  and emancipated mind, clinging to nothing of this or any other world —
  he indeed partakes of the blessings of a holy life." (Dhammapada, 1.19-20)

It seems like The Buddha wanted to encourage people to act on the teachings that lead towards arahantship rather than encourage people to focus on superficial things.

I like it but I think training such an extensive memory would be more difficult than learning to write! Which is not to say that is a bad thing, then you truly know it as it is after all.

But learning to read/write consumes many resources and most people during The Buddha's time could not read/write so all writing things down would've down during The Buddha's time is isolate people or make the dhamma available only to some.
Plus reading/writing by itself doesn't cause arahantship, the ending of mental fermentations does. So it would've just been a big waste of time and resources in The Buddha's time, and still today it may also be. Just think if you achieved arahantship would writing things down really help people out much in achieving arahantship? It's Experience vs. Reading

True.. Not much need to write the path down too when you can just ask the guy in charge! :)

Whatever Buddha taught, it is for nirvana. Each and every person used to get attain nirvana in different way. Only Buddha know the exact way to achieve nirvana in different person with different background. So Buddha taught in different ways and not every words of Buddha is recorded in Tripitaka. When orally one learn from the enlightened, it goes deep down to heart even can get nirvana before ending of verse. Orally received teaching vibrate your entire heart and can tame even the animal to get to higher abode. If you have chance to listen to the Dhamma of some great venerable monk, you will know what it means.


text:
What did the Buddha say about gratitude?
I'm looking for early Sutras that talk about gratitude. I'm especially interested in if there are lists of things that we can be grateful for, and there are sources that deal with gratitude for lay people.
(So far I've seen the Maha-mangala Sutta, which in the translation linked to talks about "blessings", but in another place ("Old Path, White Clouds" by Thich Nhat Hanh) is translated as "observances", so I'm not sure if it's relevant)
Thankful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

The Pali is 'kataññutā' & also 'kataññutā kataveditā'. 'Kataññutā' means 'what others have done for us'. 'Kataveditā' means 'what we must do in return'.

Kataññu (adj.) [cp. Sk. kṛtajña] lit. knowing, i. e. acknowledging what has been done (to one), i. e. grateful often in combn with
katavedin grateful and mindful of benefits
Kataññutā (f.) [abstr. fr. last] gratefulness (defined at KhA 144 as katassa jānanatā)
Kataveditā (f.) [abstr. fr. last] gratefulness:
Pali dictionary

SN 20.12 states:

Tasmātiha bhikkhave, evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ: ''kataññuno bhavissāma katavedino. Amhesu appakampi kataṃ mā nassissatī''ti. Evaṃ hi vo
bhikkhaveva, sikkhitabbanti.
Monks. You should train yourselves thus: "We will be grateful & thankful and we will not overlook even the least favour done to us".
This is how you should train yourselves.

AN 2.31-32 state:

Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful.
I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother
on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and
were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing
their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your
shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents.
Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses
his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in
conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles &
establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles
& establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father,
settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays &
repays one's mother & father.

As for the word 'mangala', it means 'luck' or 'blessing' (rather than 'observances')

Mangala (adj.) [cp. Vedic mangala. Expld by Dhtp 24 with root mang, i. e. lucky; see also mañju] auspicious, prosperous, lucky, festive
Nd1 87, 88; KhA 118 sq.; SnA 273, 595; Sdhp 551. -- nt. mangalaŋ good
omen, auspices, festivity

Thank you for your time and effort in writing this detailed answer. Would you say that the Maha-mangala Sutta has the most comprehensive list of things that we can be grateful for, or are there other Sutras that you would recommend that I look at? /Tord

These suttas above are the only one's i know. The word 'gratitude' does not appear very much in the suttas. However, having gratitude is the most basic form of Right View. MN 117 defines the most basic Right View as the view that your life is the recipient of gifts, offerings & sacrifices from your mother & father. Read the link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html where it states: "And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed....There is mother & father. "

Householder Tord, interested,
first of all here, let us chant the preliminary passage in homage to the Awakened One, the Blessed One:
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
if having read the Maha-Mangalsutta gratitude appears where the blessing become blessing on the path, right after the virtue section.
Althought the word gratitude is not so often a mentioned in the text, gratitude is a very factor of right view:

He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

...seeing that there are gifts, giver... and seeing the dependency on others, which, if clear, serves strongly toward the wish for an escape from debts.

The Blessed One said, "Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful. This ingratitude, this lack of thankfulness, is advocated by rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & thankful. This gratitude, this thankfulness, is advocated by civil people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity." (Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude)

Proper gratitude is the very reason for absence of stinginess, which is a quality of all Noble Ones (8 people on the path) and the absence of ingratitue a very requirement not only to even gain Jhanas but also to be able to gain path and fruits (=right view).

"Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters] {, the sixth: stinginess with Dhamma}, stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and ingratitude. Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; one is incapable realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship.
"With the abandoning of these five qualities, one is capable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; capable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship..." (MACCHARIYA SUTTA — STINGINESS)

While ordinary people also feel such as gratitude, such is mostly, or only toward sense-object (kāmaguṇa), not even toward the giver, supplier.
On a higher level goodness (guṇā, (skillful) giving) of others, would be possible perceived and gratitude for the giving of sense pleasures felt, if one understands that there are sacrifices behind. Being devoted toward, falling for, a popstar or a cook or a romance, might be traced as such.
The next higher level is giving of the lives needed means, such as beginning by giving birth, food, shelter, clothes, medicine and further the teaching of skills to provide ones live and without dangers between others. Those people, starting by ones parents, up to those guiding toward good, are called Gods, Brahmas. Integrity starts there where a person has great gratitude beginning by ones mother and father which is the previous drive to success in doing good and lighten ones debts:

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father." (Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude)

On the point where one changes to a "child of the Noble Ones", the main gratitude falls all but toward those who provided the possibilty toward liberation from the near endless net of debts, while of course the gratitude toward parents, teacher and supporter, as giver of the prerequisites (birth,..) for liberation, are not forgotten at all, yet could be repayed by helping them toward path, while such as gratitude toward supply of sense-pleasure fades rapidly, soon even seen as danger.
There are finally those hardly ever to repay (although all debts would fade with highest liberation):

Has done much

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

Even an Arahat does not abound gratitude.
Yet in relation toward all other beings such as karuṇāguṇaja, goodness out of compassion, which do no more really carry and debts for such, is what might be best expressed with the meaning of Bhagavato, a liberal, a real giver.
Most of you live in a world that tries to reject all kinds of debts for the sake of more and easier consume and that even in relation of Dhamma and practice, yet traditional the most focus would be making aware of debts and to develop deep proper gratitude, all aside toward sense-pleasure and their giver.
Wishing all to recognize that repaying is not only necessary to spend a good life here and after, but also to be clear that there is only one path to escape the wheel of debts, my person ends here, letting the relative tiny but not less powerful gifts of teaching Dhamma on gratitude, that he could collect till this days in western language for further share here behind, and no, Dhamma is not without strings, one received, but pulls one toward liberation:

The Lessons of Gratitude, by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Parents: Two short Talks on Gratitude, by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu,

The Right Angle: It’s Never Wrong, by Venerable Luang Por Liam Thitadhammo and

Gratitude, by Ven. Maha Boowa Ñanasampanno.

Gratitude in the Buddha's Teaching, by Upasaka Mahinda Wijesinghe

Every ceremony, teaching on Dhamma, entering a practice, would start with Namo, for a heart released and it's possible good to try another time to make such more common also here, where thing of reality in the world are often total ignored, yet so importand to see clear and understand the power of vision, pasada, clear.
So may you feel a lot of respect and gratitude also for all the many sacrifices you must must have done in the past, to be able to come till here and the debts of them, an possible a single missing skilfull choice right here, may left behind a lot never needed to bear another time.
mudita
A possible extended answer as well as given space for discussion and question can be accessed here: [Q&A] What did the Buddha say about gratitude?

(practical) Edition in regard of practice:
[Q&A] How to develope, learn and maintain gratitude (right view)?
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

Thank you for taking the time to answer the question, for my benefit and for the benefit of all <3

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


text:
Dhamma and Buddha Dhamma
Are the words Dhamma and Buddha Dhamma synonyms? Or are there hidden differences between between both? Are these words used in different circumstances?

Th word 'dharma' or 'dhamma' means 'supporter' and is used universally in the various Indian religions to refer to any doctrine that attempts to maintain life & the mind to be free from suffering & problems. The Thai teacher Bhikkhu Buddhadasa once explained "dhamma" as follows:

Dhamma is the thing called "the Duty of all living things" that which they must do to survive both physically and mentally, both for their
own sake and for that of society. Even when translating this word as
"teaching," "learning" or "practice," the important understanding is
still in its being the duty of salvation. Whenever duty is done, that
is Dhamma practice.
Ajahn Buddhadasa

For example, some religions will include the notion of "God" and practising dharma includes belief in God. Such beliefs in God help the believer reduce their suffering, such as believing when a loved one dies the loved one is dwelling in heaven or in the other world with God or Brahma.
In Pali Buddhism, dependent on context, the term 'dhamma' is translated in different ways, such as 'phenomena', 'nature', 'law', 'truth', 'path', 'skilful practices', 'fruit', etc, because each of these are things that 'support' the spiritual life.
The term 'Buddha-Dhamma' specifically refers to the dharma of the Buddha, i.e., the Buddha's understanding & method to support life so life is free from suffering & problems. For example, when Sariputta (Upatissa) first met a Buddhist monk:

Upatissa said: "Serene are your features, friend. Pure and bright is your complexion. Under whom, friend, have you gone forth as an
ascetic? Who is your teacher and whose dhamma do you profess?"
Assaji replied: "There is, O friend, the Great Recluse, the scion of the Sakyas, who has gone forth from the Sakya clan. Under that Blessed
One I have gone forth. That Blessed One is my teacher and it is his
Dhamma that I profess."
Life of Sariputta

In summary, the words 'dharma' and 'Buddha-Dhamma' are not synonymous because Buddha-Dhamma refers to the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, the Three Characteristics and Emptiness, which are not dhammas found in other Indian religions.

Well, technically dharma (Pali dhamma) means any tradition (a particular view of the world and a lifestyle passed down through generations) such as, for example, baker dharma, trader dharma, knight dharma etc. So buddha dharma is just one possible dharma out of many.


text:
What exactly is Buddhism? Where does it help me? How can I start?
I just discovered this website and it seems really interesting!
But now I ask myself: "What exactly is this? What exactly is Buddhism? How can it help me? Where does it help me?" etc.
I really want to start with it (if it really helps me in everyday life), but I don't know how :(. Can anyone explain it to me?
Thank you in advance!

You might be interested in the resources page the community has compiled for new comers.

The exact nature of Buddhism is it exists to diagnose the suffering & problems that exist in human life for the sole purpose of overcoming & being free from suffering & problems in human life.
The Buddha said: "I teach about two things: suffering & freedom from suffering".
Whatever problems people have, be they related to work, finance, relationships, life skills, grief, suffering, discontent, existentialism, etc, Buddhism generally has an answer.
In short, Buddhism exists to bring human happiness, peace & freedom.

Oh wow! How can I learn it?

Ask questions about matters that are relevant to your life or, otherwise, read, study & meditate.

I suggest you do a retreat at a monastery or other practice centre. Practicing in a sangha (a Buddhist community) is a fundamental part of Buddhism, and you will have the opportunity to meet a teacher and put your questions to him (or her).


text:
How to get back to practice after "falling" from it?
How to get back to practice after failing ?   i  always try and fail try and fail
meditating for some years- had and have a teacher - did retreats  -  but i never manage to keep meditating for more than a few days  - tried going all in - tried only meditating 5 minutes - or just being mindful ect ect
cause every time i fail i take a month or two break if not more
so how can i get back to practice each time ?   the more i "fail" and take this breaks i feel that its for no use cause i never manage to persevere no matter what i try

Are you sitting with a group?

no - thought if it - nothing close to me but even if there was i would not go probably more than once or twice

Ask your teacher. But my advice would be to just continue trying. Failing is not the problem here, it is the expectation of achieving some results which is the problem, because it causes suffering. Do as much meditation as you can without thinking about the past or future. Also sometimes being frustrated can be useful, because it shows you what kind of approach to meditation works and what doesn't.

What do you think it is that is making you fall? I could only speculate. I ask myself this question all the time.  Your problem sounds similar to a problem I am having.
I practice continuously but  intermittently and only a very tiny bit here and there throughout each day in whatever position I happen to be in. I can't seem to get myself to sit down and practice even though I have plenty of time to so. It appears that I am able to see more and more subtly even with such little practice. I usually try to meditate on my desires or vedana,  aiming to resolve this tiny practice problem .
I have a feeling like all I have to do is remove a twig and this boulder of intense practice will run me over. That sounds scary but that is probably why the twig is there because I fear the boulder of intense practice for some reason.
I recently saw that I probably am not taking silla seriously enough and that is probably causing me a lack of concentration on some level. Also I ponder my effort and what it could be that I am taking for granted. Maybe something in here will help your situation. Good luck :)

First of all, don't be too hard on yourself. Living in Samsara is not easy, hence why we practice to become free from the rounds of suffering.
You made it this far, i.e. being born as a human being. That in itself is a very rare thing.
A human life is short and can end at any moment. The Buddha recommended us to contemplate the 5 Daily Recollections each day. Combined with meditation on death this can be effective in creating samvega.
You might want to reflect upon your practice and why you are practicing. Are you practicing to keep being in lay life? Are you practicing to become free from suffering? Are you practicing to become a Buddha? Then align your effort with that.
Most importantly, are you practicing in order to understand reality? Only the understanding of reality (wisdom) will set us free.
Are you practicing according to the Noble Eight Fold Path?
Check the different groupings and see where practice is needed. It tends to be people-specific, e.g. some people needs to put more practice into the concentration-group while others need to work more on the morality-group.
This will allow you to see where you need to practice and it will show you which of the 5 hindrances you need to work on. That in turn also shows which of the Ten Paramis you need to cultivate in a greater deal.
I have not mentioned meditation-practice (vipassana) in this answer as the text-body will become too large. You are more than welcome to sent me an email if you want to discuss that. My mail address is on the profile page.
May you have a fruitful practice.

I think this question comes from a place of misunderstanding.  There is ultimately no reason why you have to practice meditation.  Somehow, in the West at least, we've concluded that real Buddhism involves a cushion and sore backside.  Those who claim to be Buddhist and don't sit are looked down upon.  This is rubbish and completely contradictory to how the Buddha actually taught.  The dharma he preached was always tailored specifically for the audience he was addressing.  Householders were given instruction on how to make the most of their situation, kings were advised accordingly, and monks received teachings geared towards them.
You aren't a bad person for not being able to sit.  A deep meditation practice isn't and shouldn't be the immediate goal for everyone. We all have different strengths, different karma, and different life circumstances.  Find the dharma you can practice first.  Gradually grow into the rest later.

If your practice fails review first step on 8 fold path. Perfect knowledge will bring you stream entry and practice flows naturally from that. In other words, a lack of momentum in practice means you have gotten the lesson wrong somewhere. You can't be blamed considering the layers of bs that have been heaped upon the teachings of the Buddha over the centuries. You will have to study hard. Read "Doctrine of the  Buddha " by George Grimm. Will clear the nonsense from truth


text:
Is camsex a sin
I'd like to know if masturbating with his/her boyfriend/girlfriend, during a sex cam session for example, is a sin ?
Is showing one's private parts to his/her bf/gf is a sin? Does it take part in breaking the 3rd precept ?

The five precepts define ways that do not harm others. Forms of unconventional sex with a permissible (non-prohibited) partner do not fall under the 3rd precept. However, they may be unwholesome & stupid behaviors that harm oneself, either in the short or long term (such as cultivating unbeneficial & dangerous mental tendencies, habits & addictions).

Thanks for the the answer. Can you explain what do you mean by non-prohibited please?

The 3rd precept is defined as: not having sex with children/teenagers/young adults that still live with their parents particularly if the parents disapprove; not having sex with a person under the age of legal consent; not having sex with a person in the care of a institution; not having sex with another person's husband, wife or fiancee. These are explicitly prohibited sex partners. That said, this definition was obviously culturally specific since in that culture people married very young, as soon as they reached sexual puberty.

If i may add something to the answer, even though it may not be a breaking of the precept it is still a "Akusala" as it creates a bond / attraction / lust that did not existed before. But in that case there is little shelter from akusala as any craving for lay life's pleasures falls into that category. But you needn't be brightened as "Akusala" comes to effect as a delayer for nirvana unlike Bad karma which can be terrifying. @Concerned

@Concerned, although it's technically not a breach of the 3rd precept, doesn't mean it should be encouraged. Any reaction will have a re-action and sometimes the reaction can haunt one for the rest of his/her life. Ever heard of a thing called "revenge porn"?

If they are not independent, growing under the protection of parents, yes it's a sin

There is no "sin" in Buddhism. Every act is evaluated on the basis of whether it leads to Peace or to Trouble, and in what degree. Any activity that feeds and cultivates Lust leads to Trouble, in a strong degree.
This is because Lust is what's known as "blinding affect", it makes one's mind blind. Blinded by lust you no longer know what's good / what's bad for you or for others, because you are so focused on achieving your desire that you have tunnel vision, you don't think.
Also, lust leads to objectification of the person which you desire. You no longer see them in all their complex inter-being with the rest of the world, you see a Thing which you want. When you are in this mode, you can easily harm the other person with insensitive acts.
Finally, lust leads to "subjectification" of you. When you project yourself onto the future and fantasize about being with the object of your lust, you cement an artificial image of "I" - which, as any fantasy, leads to conflict with the real world.
So no matter how you look at it, cultivating Lust leads to trouble for you and others. Will camsex not reenforce your lust and desire towards that other person? I don't think so.

Andre, what do you mean by inter-being? This is not what the Buddha taught, did he? I presume that the questioner is probably a lay practitioners since he is - as you correctly corrected him - speaking of 'sins', where there are no commandments in Buddhism. Personally, the whole concept of not giving in to sexual desire is for a lay practitioner quite hard. Notice, I said hard not impossible, but the 'suffering' is usually not seen, and for a good reason: If he enjoys sex (even a ONS) and leaves it at that, then he isn't suffering, he just increased his lust. That's normal in his age.

Volkov While there is a connection between ''coveting" & 'being angry for not getting what one wants', it doesn't automatically follow that anger WILL take place. What is causing anger (and guilt and many other problems) are underlying dogmatic statements like MUST's & SHOULD's. If one investigates the harm on oneself & on others (=sex is done consensual), I see no reason for him not to engage in these activities. It's not optimal for samadhi, but then again: Is it worth it while restraining himself he somehow gives into sex he as a consequence self-loathes himself? I Don't think so.

@Val what do you mean by inter-being? "Inter-being" is a doctrine of Thich Nhat Hanh, maybe of others too; an outward manifestation of which is brothers and sisters, social interactions between lay and monastic.

@Andrei, I can't accept this "Any activity that feeds and cultivates Lust leads to Trouble". For laypeople it's accepted by Buddhism to have sex for husband and wife. It's not totally restricted

@Joe - I'd agree with Andrei on this. It's just that sex between husband and wife may not feed and cultivate lust. Indeed, I imagine it may have an ameliorating effect for some people if they are still caught up in it. All in all sex is a tricky issue.


text:
Not-Buddhism is the highest level of Buddhism?
I'm new here. I have a question regarding "Not-Buddhism" as the highest level of Buddhism.
I'm not sure where is the source, but this is the koan.

Tozan said to his monks, "You monks should know there is an even higher understanding in Buddhism." A monk stepped forward and asked, "What is the higher Buddhism?" Tozan answered, "It is not Buddha."

What does Tozan mean by "It is not Buddha"?

Whenever Zen Buddhist talks of 'emptiness', or 'no', they are essentially referring to dependent origination with the terminology as used by the Madhyamaka. As stated by Nagarjuna:

All dharmas that arise from causes and conditions,
I call them emptiness.
They are also provisional names,
And also the Middle Way.

What Nagarjuna is saying, is that because all dependent originated phenomenon are due to causes and conditions, by their very conditionality they are impermanent and without self. As stated by the Buddha.

Pratītyasamutpāda
"When this is, that is;
This arising, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
This ceasing, that ceases."

Therefore because things are impermanent and without a true lasting self. He call them 'empty'.
So Huineng's famous stanza response to Shenxiu:

Our body is the Bodhi tree,
And our mind is like a bright mirror with stand,
Diligently we wipe them all the time,
And let no dust alight.

As Shenxiu indicates: we need to practice to cleanse ourselves of defilement craving, aversion and delusion as represented by the dust. This is reflected in the practice of mindful concentration (following monastic discipline and meditation) which can suppress the effects of our mental afflictions.

There is no Bodhi Tree
Nor the stand of a bright mirror,
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight?

However Huineng using wisdom pointed out that in fact the body and mind are themselves dependently originated. That is they are caused and conditioned, impermanent and without self, so where are afflictions actually coming from?
The 'dust' themselves are dependently generated craving. This is the root source of suffering. As noted earlier, emptiness means impermanence and not self. The defilement has a condition for appearing, and when the condition is removed (through the application of wisdom), the defilement dissipate. The awareness of impermanence, selflessness and understanding of dependent origination is the tool for this. Of course that level of insight only comes with the practice of ethics and concentration. So Huineng is not denying the validity of what was said by Shenxiu, but that there is a deeper way of seeing things with wisdom.

Tozan said to his monks, "You monks should know there is an even
  higher understanding in Buddhism." A monk stepped forward and asked,
  "What is the higher Buddhism?" Tozan answered, "It is not Buddha."

So Tozan (Chan master Dongshan Liangjie) is pointing out that true wisdom is seeing emptiness, impermanence and selflessness even within the Buddha. That a Buddha is dependently originated too.
Ultimately Buddhism is still talking about dependent origination, impermanence, not self, suffering and the end of suffering.

The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta shows how the Buddha treats views about the cosmos being eternal and views about the fate of the Buddha after death.

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

And another quote,

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Having a position about what is Buddhism has similar drawbacks to having a view about the eternal-ness of the cosmos. Tozan is discouraging views like "This practice Buddhist" or "That idea is part of Buddhism".

A teacher of mine said, "Be positionless."

Many Zen teachings seem to regard 'non-discrimination' as the highest thing, such as when Huineng said:

There is no Bodhi Tree
Nor the stand of a bright mirror,
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight?

Note: This does not conform with the original Buddhism of the Buddha, which is only concerned with eradicating craving & self-views rather than eradicating all discrimination (which the Buddha rejected as Nirvana).

In @Hugh answer, the Buddha seems to advocate for eradicating all discrimination. Why did you say that non-discrimination does not conform to the original Buddhism? What is your source that the Buddha rejected it as Nirvana?

@Kyoma We must be careful with any sutta given to Vacchagotta because Vacchagotta was confused & thinking too much and those sutas are teachings given specifically for the sake of Vacchagotta. The sutta referred to says the Buddha does not hold a position in relation to unknowable things & also in relation to 'personality views' about the Buddha himself. Eradicating all discrimination (labels, concepts, words, etc) is immaterial jhana, as taught by Alara Kalama, which Buddha rejected as Nibbana before his enlightenment. Regards

The following words, particularly "construings" & "excogitations", need to be examined carefully (which I have not done): "a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging, released." For example, in MN 140, the word "construing" refers to construing the thoughts: "I am". Therefore, I would imagine "excogitations" refers to the same kind of egoism or self-views, which is the main subject of the verse.

Vacchagotta was obsessed with his view of the Buddha as a "person" or "personality", so Buddha debunked him. The sutta is about giving up self-views rather than giving up all discriminations or labels, such as 'dog', 'tree', 'book', 'food', "Buddha", etc.

You don't actually understand Huineng's position.

This is basically a call to keep on focusing on the real thing and a warning not to get stuck in any concept, even or especially high order concepts from within the doctrine. Even those are to be transcended. If not, it is just another form of clinging and discerning.
No intricate speculation about emptiness is needed to explain this one. From a doctrinal point of view one would rather think of the Prajnaparamita tradition where a concept (e.g. Buddha) is first confirmed only to be negated the next moment (not-buddha). What comes out of this, is the 'real meaning'.

The idea is similar to the philosophy of Adwaita Vedanta in Hinduism.  We may worship GOD with form (sakara , finite) or without form (Nirakara ,Infinite) .Worshiping a Human being as God or Son of God or Incarnation of God or Representative of God on Earth (Prophet, teacher, leader) etc. ,..is the First stage of Human Spiritual Development. Worshipping the INFINITE Nature or Universe -- or-- the Invisible Power or Laws that move and control it,..is the Second sage of Human Spiritual Development. Scientists Studying the Universe or Cosmos , trying to discover the Laws , that Govern the Universe , are in practice , worshipping that Infinite God .
An would be cosmologist , first studies the works of Scientists like Newton ,Einstein etc. and second studies the Universe Himself ,taking the latest available information into consideration. He gets satisfaction only in the second stage . As he continues his study ,he might change or modify the thinkings of previous scientists , like Newton or Einstein and at a later stage , may give his own views or theory of the working of the Universe. So , the logic is this --- First ..Worship and follow the Buddha and then Second..  , go beyond Buddha , and think of the Infinite Universe YOURSELF.


text:
Tanha vs "Right Aspiration" & Anatta vs nihilism: how does one resolve contradictions in BUddhism?
From my perspective, the two biggest obstacles to to perfect understanding of Dharma is the apparent contradictions between "Tanha" and "Right Aspiration" and Anatta vs Buddha's condemnation of nihilism (SN 1.96: “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”) and his teachings on rebirth.
Tanha, "thirst" (desire) is given as the primary cause of Dukkha and yet "right Aspiration" (basically desire) is part of the 8 fold path. Clearly Buddha did not condemn "desire" if you define it as wanting something you don't have. So what distinguishes between the two?
Anatta doctrine held by some Buddhist, that there ultimately is no-soul or self and nothing really "exists" but is empty of inherent existence and therefore insubstantial and suffering is basically nihilist. This contradicts Buddha's teaching on rebirth and Nirvana (the unborn, unmade, unconditioned etc. makes liberation from the born, made, conditioned possible). No matter how you want to spin it, if your position is that the soul does not exists and there is no self outside of conditioned existence, then you are doomed to the grave and there is zero possibility for enlightenment or liberation from Samsara because how can an "illusion" that doesn't exists be "enlightened" or "saved"? The only option for a mind made illusion is to simply cease to exist once the causes that create the illusion (the body 5 kandas etc.) dies. You just fade to black, no karma, no rebirth, no Nirvana, no enlightenment no nothing. How do you resolve this seeming contradiction?

Anatta doctrine held by some Buddhist, that there ultimately is no-soul or self

Correct.

and nothing really "exists"

Incorrect. Mind & body exist. Five aggregates exist. Nibbana exists.

but is empty of inherent existence

Empty of 'self' existence. Empty of permanent existence. But exist temporarily.

and therefore insubstantial

The five aggregates are 'insubstantial' due to their impermanence. But not Nibbana.

and suffering

This is a mistranslation. In respect to the five aggregates, the translation is 'unsatisfactory' because impermanent things cannot bring lasting happiness.

is basically nihilist.

In Buddhism, 'nihilism' refers to the (wrong non-Buddhist) view that there is a 'self' that ends at death. Since Buddhism explains there is no self to die, it is not nihilist.

This contradicts Buddha's teaching on rebirth

'Rebirth' refers to the re-arising of 'self-view' due to ignorance. There is no contradiction.

and Nirvana (the unborn, unmade, unconditioned etc. makes liberation from the born, made, conditioned possible).

Nirvana is the peace that is known by the mind when 'self-view' & craving end. There is no contradiction.

No matter how you want to spin it, if your position is that the soul does not exists and there is no self outside of conditioned existence,
  then you are doomed to the grave and there is zero possibility for
  enlightenment or liberation from Samsara

'Samsara' simply refers to the mind spinning around in 'self-views' due to craving & ignorance.

because how can an "illusion" that doesn't exists be "enlightened" or "saved"?

What is saved is the 'mind'. In Buddhism, it is called 'ceto-vimutti', which means 'mind-liberation'. When the mind is cleansed of greed, hatred & delusion, it is 'saved'. That the mind has a illusory quality is irrelevant to this salvation.

The only option for a mind made illusion is to simply cease to exist
  once the causes that create the illusion (the body 5 kandas etc.)
  dies.

The mind is an illusion rather than life. For example, the planet earth is not really an illusion. It is only the mental perceptions (of earth) that are 'illusory'.  The earth is very solid and has existed for billions of years. But the mind exists for moment, ceases & then arises for another illusory impermanent fleeting moment.

You just fade to black, no karma, no rebirth, no Nirvana, no enlightenment no nothing. How do you resolve this seeming
  contradiction?

Yes. It can seem to be like a 'contradiction'. But when the mind is free from greed, hatred & delusion, what seems to be 'contradictory' to an ignorant unenlightened mind will vanish.
The Buddha was never under the illusion that all individuals could comprehend his Dhamma.

Annata and enlightenment
The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta gives an answer of sorts as to what happens to the Buddha after he dies. A summary of the sutta might be that any view about what happens after the death of an enlightened being is wrong-view because that being didn't ultimately exist before death (you should read the sutta yourself to get a more full understanding).

The only option for a mind made illusion is to simply cease to exist

I don't think that this is a problematic position on the issue. There's a distinction made between a self which didn't inherently exist before or after enlightenment, and the illusion of self which existed before enlightenment but not after. Annata is about the self whereas enlightenment is about the illusion.
You object to the idea of the illusion being enlightened or saved but this is really just a problem with semantics, you think that the word "saved" has to refer to something real which is saved but when we use this term in Buddhism we used a more flexible definition and it's only the illusion of self which was suffering that is now saved.
Craving and right-aspiration

Clearly Buddha did not condemn "desire" if you define it as wanting something you don't have. So what distinguishes between the two?

There are two Pali words tanha and chanda. Chanda is a sense of wanting which arises in the mind before the defilements turn it into tanha which is the craving that leads to dukkha. When chanda arises we can use wisdom to decide whether to follow a want or not, if we have no wisdom then when chanda arises we immediately attach to it and think that our wants have to be met and so we suffer. If chanda arises and the wanting is right-aspiration then we choose to follow that thought, however, we don't attach to it so that when our efforts don't get us what we wanted we don't suffer.
This is a difficult distinction to see, an example of how we can treat chanda with wisdom might help.

Imagine that you see a starving man and there is a wanting (chanda) to give him food. You know that you don't have control over the world and limited control over your body so you can only attempt to give him food. You pick up some rice and walk towards him but your hip dislocates and you can't walk to the man so he starves.

In this example from the moment the chanda arose you knew that you could only attempt to feed the man so there was no attachment to the result of your actions. This line of thinking didn't lead to a craving for the man to be fed and so there was no dukkha as a result.

So what distinguishes between the two?
Maybe one thing that distinguishes it is whether it is "Right".
Right Aspirations follows from Right View, whereas presumably Tanha does not follow from right view.
It's easy to find explanations, e.g. here's the first thing I found via a Google for "right aspiration":

It is important to see that aspiration is not desire. The Pali word ‘tanha’ means desire that comes out of ignorance, whereas ‘sankappa’ means aspiration not coming from ignorance. Aspiration might seem like a kind of desire to us because in English we use the word ‘desire’ for everything of that nature - either aspiring or wanting. You might think that aspiration is a kind of tanha, wanting to become enlightened (bhava tanha) - but samma sankappa comes from Right Understanding, seeing clearly. It is not wanting to become anything; it is not the desire to become an enlightened person. With Right Understanding, that whole illusion and way of thinking no longer makes sense.

There's also a sutta whose topic is the question you asked: Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15)
Anatta doctrine held by some Buddhist
I think it's held by all Buddhists.
It's listed in this answer to 'What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?':

We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (samkhara) are impermanent (anicca) and imperfect and unsatisfactory (dukkha), and all conditioned and unconditioned things (dhamma) are without self (anatta)

nothing really "exists"
That might be a mis-statement of the doctrine. See for example this Zen story: Nothing Exists
is basically nihilist
I think that what Buddhism describes as "nihilism" is the belief that actions have no consequence; or a "nihilist" might be used to describe someone with no doctrine at all.
you are doomed to the grave
That's implying there's a "you"; or that the body which is destined for the grave is you.
I think that Buddhism teaches that views-of-self (ego-centrism, identity-view) lead to suffering, and that it's therefore better not to hold to such views.
The only option for a mind made illusion is to simply cease
Maybe. Apparently sometimes the "ego" struggles against "ego death"? Those are words that I read sometimes, see e.g. Ego death - Buddhism.
I suppose it's obvious that illusions do come and go; no big deal.
Or maybe illusion doesn't cease.
How do you resolve this seeming contradiction?
Apart from the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, I also recommend paragraph 23 of the The Discourse on the Snake Simile (MN 22):

"You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."


text:
How is Vegetarianism morally superior to eating meat in a Buddhist context?
Fact: Buddha ate meat. He died from food poisoning eating pork. Are not thousands if not millions of living being slaughtered when you harvest vegetables (worms, insects, micro-organisms etc.)? So how is vegetarianism morally superior to eating meat in a Buddhist context?

First of all, the Buddha didn't die from eating pork at least in the Theravada point of view. In fact, his last meal was sukara maddava, translated to English dug by pigs, a mushroom which still grows in India.
Also, vegetarianism is not considered morally superior to eating meat in Theravada. The general guideline followed with regards to eating meat by both monastics and laity is,

I say that there are three occasions in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected, that the living being has been killed for sake of the bhikkhu, I say: Meat may be eaten on these three occasions.
MN 55

On the other hand, a person can be a strict vegetarian while craving for tastier food and could be strengthening his ego considering his higher morality, both of which are not good.

So Buddha allowed for eating meat. So there is no basis for moral superiority of being a vegetarian according to suttas. There is no extra merit for this. Say a prayer for the millions of living beings that died for you salad.

@atman yes he allowed eating meat except 10 types of meat, humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. There's no extra merit on being vegetarian.

The above 10 types of meat were restricted only for the monks, not for laity.

Not a direct answer just some points about this :
1 - More crops are grown specifically to feed livestock than to feed humans
so the move of people to a vegan diet will reduce the amount of crops needed
(and yes animals are fed non-edible plant parts and feces "fish flour" ect but thats on top of the crops you grow  -   about "grass fed"  first its a tiny tiny part of the meat in genral and even grass fed are fed crops- by piles of crops put in the fields - by feeding cattle in winter time - by feeding the cows a high calorie diet some months before slaughter ect)
so if someone really cares for  insects ect
that's just another good reason to become vegan !
2 . A good source on the buddhas diet is : http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Diet_of_Buddha
3 . A good video about eating meat is "animals and the buddha"  :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc&t=254s
4 . This is hard to explain in non-buddhist sites but here its simple :  INTENTION to kill is key - a lot of the deaths in crops are not intended to be dont (some are but not all)  unlike the deaths in the meat industry which are intended  -   so when you buy meat you pay for someone to kill  you pay someone to cause some very bad karma
So INTENTIONAL KILLING vs UNINTENDED KILLINGS    .....  and knowing for sure that when you buy meat its going to cause intentional killing
and yes its not like killing the animal yourself  ...  but still there is a difference  - and this is another thing people should take into account
5 . i follow theravada buddhism so i talk from this point  but i know there are vegetarian sects in mahayana buddhism - but maybe im wrong didnt research this  -  but my view in theravada is you can eat meat - but it is conducive to avoid eating meat completely and being vegan
6 . monks and lay people are very different and theres a different between a monk accepting meat  and a lay person buying meat at the supermarket

It is not clear if The Buddha died from eating pork or mushrooms (sukara-maddava). But it was obviously intentional or planned out (since according to the sutta no one else in the universe would be able to eat such a thing and entirely digest it).
It is clear that The Buddha did not support vegetarianism. He opposed directly killing animals (hunting, fishing, etc...) but eating meat that wasn't directly killed by you or naturally died is allowed. He also opposed damaging plant and seed life.
He also pointed out that ascetic practices (which includes avoiding eating meat, drinking alcohol, etc...) are painful in the present and yield pain in the future (MN 45), they lead to hell or lower destinations as explained because they simply torment one's body without causing one to achieve arahantship or higher states (jhanas).
Vegetarianism fits into the category of an ascetic practice that by itself doesn't cause one to achieve arahantship or higher states (jhanas).
A vegetarian who hasn't ended their mental fermentations is still a non-arahant.
A vegetarian who does evil deeds is still an evil doer.
Practices are only helpful if they lead towards arahantship (the ending of mental fermentations).

"I praise the right method of a householder or of one gone forth
  homeless. Whether a householder or one gone forth homeless, if fallen
  to the right method it is possible that he should be convinced of
  noble merit. " (MN 99)
"Not by shaven head does a man who is indisciplined and untruthful
  become a monk. How can he who is full of desire and greed be a monk?"
  (Dhammapada, 264)
"Just as kusa grass wrongly handled cuts the hand, even so, a
  recluse's life wrongly lived drags one to hell" (Dhammapada, 311)

How important is vegetarianism by itself to achieving arahantship? Not very.
Lots of things you do can indirectly kill living beings besides eating meat (not directly killed by you or your request), better to focus on the things that matter that lead towards arahantship.
For reference, here's what it says in MN 45:

"And what is the taking on of a practice that is painful in the
  present and yields pain in the future?
"There is the case where someone is a cloth-less ascetic, rejecting
  conventions, licking his hands, not coming when asked, not staying
  when asked. He doesn't consent to food brought to him or food
  dedicated to him or to an invitation to a meal. He accepts nothing
  from the mouth of a pot or from the mouth of a bowl. He accepts
  nothing from across a stick, across a pestle, from two eating
  together, from a pregnant woman, from a nursing woman, from a woman
  lying with a man, from a food collection, from where a dog is waiting
  or flies are buzzing. He takes no fish or meat. He drinks no liquor,
  wine, or fermented drink. He limits himself to one house & one morsel
  a day, or two houses & two morsels... seven houses & seven morsels. He
  lives on one saucerful a day, two... seven saucerfuls a day. He takes
  food once a day, once every two days... once every seven days, and so
  on up to a fortnight, devoted to regulating his intake of food. He is
  an eater of greens, millet, wild rice, hide-parings, moss, rice bran,
  rice-scum, sesame flour, grass, or cow dung. He lives on forest roots
  & berries. He feeds on fallen fruits. He wears hemp, canvas, shrouds,
  refuse rags, tree bark, antelope hide, strips of antelope hide,
  kusa-grass garments, bark garments, wood-shaving garments, head-hair
  garments, animal wool, owl's wings. He is a hair-&-beard puller, one
  devoted to the practice of pulling out his hair & beard. He is a
  stander, one who rejects seats. He is a hands-around-the-knees sitter,
  one devoted to the exertion of sitting with his hands around his
  knees. He is a spike-mattresser, one who makes his bed on a bed of
  spikes. He is a third-time-in-the-evening bather, one who stays
  devoted to the practice of bathing in water. Thus in a variety of ways
  he stays devoted to the practice of tormenting & afflicting the body.
  With the break-up of the body, after death, he goes to a bad bourn,
  destitution, the realm of the hungry shades, hell."
  (Cula-dhammasamadana Sutta, MN 45)

Also in MN 12 The Buddha explains how following a certain diet didn't help him achieve enlightenment:

"Sariputta, there are certain recluses and brahmans whose doctrine and
  view is this: 'Purification comes about through food.' They say: 'Let
  us live on beans'... 'Let us live on sesamum'... 'Let us live on
  rice,' and they eat rice, they eat rice powder, they drink rice water,
  and they make various kinds of rice concoctions. Now I recall having
  eaten a single rice grain a day. Sariputta, you may think that the
  rice grain was bigger at that time, yet you should not regard it so:
  the rice grain was then at most the same size as now. Through feeding
  on a single rice grain a day, my body reached a state of extreme
  emaciation. Because of eating so little... the hair, rotted at its
  roots, fell from my body as I rubbed."
"Yet, Sariputta, by such conduct, by such practice, by such
  performance of austerities, I did not attain any superhuman states,
  any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. Why
  was that? Because I did not attain that noble wisdom which when
  attained is noble and emancipating and leads the one who practices in
  accordance with it to the complete destruction of suffering."
  (Maha-sihanada Sutta, MN 12)

Also The Buddha says:

"Monks, one who hasn't abandoned nine things is incapable of realizing
  arahantship. Which nine? Passion, aversion, delusion, anger,
  resentment, arrogance, insolence, envy, & stinginess. One who hasn't
  abandoned these nine things is incapable of realizing arahantship."
  (AN 9.62)

This means those who abstain from eating meat and follow other rules but haven't abandoned these nine things would still be incapable of becoming arahants even though they follow all types of rules and ascetic practices.

He also pointed out that ascetic practices (which includes avoiding eating meat, drinking alcohol, etc...) are painful in the present and yield pain in the future
not drinking alcohol is included in the 5 precepts
Of course you can eat meat and be an arahant - and of course a vegeterian can still be an evil doer
but i do belive not eating meat and not drinking alcohol are things which help reach arahantship
it is important you dont do them to boast your moral  and not do them for the purpose of casueing you suffering but if its done for the right reasons this things and otehr

asectic practices are helpful to practice

Yes not drinking alcohol is one of the five precepts...in MN 45 The Buddha explains how an ascetic life (including some rules for Buddhists) wrongly practiced tormenting one's body leads to lower destinations (hell). Following some of the rules for Buddhists in a wrong manner would still lead towards hell (see Dhammapada, 311).

Also in MN 14 The Buddha explains how the Niganthas (those who practice painful austerities) came from hell or were murderers, doers of what's cruel in the past as humans.

Ascetic practices are only helpful if they are accompanied by things that lead towards arahantship, otherwise they wouldn't really help with much. Obviously drinking alcohol leads towards heedlessness but merely abstaining from alcohol by itself doesn't necessarily help one avoid lower destinations or achieve arahantship. Concentration and insight are more helpful.

of course you should do this things right - and of course someone who dosnt drink or eat meat wont get somewhere by not doing this  -  you keep sila to help you develop Concentration and insight
like i said if someone does this practices not for restraint and aid but to cause himself pain that wrong view  -   if someone will shave his head and wear robes just to look ugly and feel bad that wont be helpful to the practice  but doing them as aid is helpful to the practice