text:
In Pure Land Buddhism, what realm do the pure lands belong to? Are they outside of the usual six realms?
Do the pure lands belong to heaven realms? Or a completely different realm from the normal six realms?

From wikipedia:
About Pure Land of Pure Land Buddhism:

Upon entry into the Pure Land, the practitioner is instructed by
  Amitābha Buddha and numerous bodhisattvas until full and complete
  enlightenment is reached. This person then has the choice of
  returning at any time as a bodhisattva to any of the six realms of
  existence in order to help all sentient beings in saṃsāra, or to stay
  the whole duration, reach Buddhahood, and subsequently deliver beings
  to the shore of liberation.

About the Sphere of No Form:

Bodhisattvas ... are never born in the Ārūpyadhātu even when
  they have attained the arūpadhyānas.

About the Pure Abodes tier of the  Sphere of Form:

Because a Śuddhāvāsa deva will never be reborn outside the Śuddhāvāsa
  worlds, no Bodhisattva is ever born in these worlds, as a Bodhisattva
  must ultimately be reborn as a human being.

In the rest of the realms of the Sphere of Form the beings continuously dwell in the state of mind corresponding to one of the four dhyanas, and therefore arguably cannot possibly be "instructed by Amitabha Buddha and numerous bodhisattvas".
This leaves the Sphere of Desire (kamadhatu) of which the only appropriate place for Pure Lands is the world of gods (aka Heavens). Indeed, the famous Tusita heaven is where the Bodhisattva Natha currently resides, who will later be born as the next Buddha, Maitreya.

Tuṣita (Sanskrit) or Tusita (Pāli) is one of the six deva-worlds of
  the Kāmadhātu, located between the Yāma heaven and the Nirmāṇarati
  heaven.
  [...]
  In Mahayana Buddhist thought, the Tuṣita Heaven is where all
  Bodhisattvas destined to reach full enlightenment in their next life
  dwell for a time.

However,

Tuṣita is part of the same world-system as Earth, and so is relatively
  close, whereas the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha is treated as a
  separate world-system entirely.

From all of the above it follows that Pure Land of Pure Land Buddhism are inside "the usual six realms", namely they are part of the heaven realms.

There are so many confusion regarding Pure Land Buddhism. Many people even see it as non Buddhist because it seems to be about the Amitabha Buddha saving humans through the power of his grace.
I am from a non denominational Chinese Mahayana organization with Chan lineage but we also heavily devote to Amitabha and emphasize the Amitabha Sutra in our practice.
After more than a year of chanting the sutra, my conclusion is that it is a metaphor for the Dharma! Remember that Pure Land Buddhism is an outgrowth of Mahayana Buddhism and therefore one of the highest goals is the Perfection of Skillful Means (Upaya Paramita). Mahayana texts utilize fantastical imageries and stories to bring across the difficult to understand technical concepts and teachings in early Buddhism, preserved in the Pali Canon and the Sanskrit Agama.
Imagine your average person being told about the Four Noble Truths, Suffering, Cause of suffering, End of Suffering and the Noble Eightfold Path. It doesn't interest him - "Give up my desires? That's ridiculous! And end of suffering doesn't sound exciting at all! Impermanence sounds so depressing!"
So this is where Pure Land Buddhism comes in. "What if we tell you that there is a place called the World of Supreme Bliss better than any worldly pleasures? And to reach there you need chant this sutra everyday, and I promise you Amitabha Buddha will appear before you". If you didn't realize, chanting is actually a very powerful form of meditation, in fact for the novice, it is faster and more effective than sitting meditation and trying to watch your breath. Here your attention and focus is on the sutra, attaining Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. With that it is possible to experiences the mental factors of the Jhana/Chan/Zen, joy, happiness, peace, and realizations. So in fact the Pure Land is a metaphor for the enlightenment factors.
Further more it is stated in sutra that in the Pure Land of Amitabha, even lower realms (hell, hungry ghost, and animals) do not exist, this is a Mahayana message that ultimately the goal is not only to save yourself, but purify the whole world. Pure Land Buddhists vow to turn this very world into a paradise. And have a Pure Land in their hearts wherever they maybe.


text:
Why is meditation making me more angry?
Can someone tell me what's wrong?
I am extremely new to the art of meditation in general.
My mind, in general, is always cluttered with either office worries or personal worries.
When I remove my worries slowly via meditation (i.e. emptying my thoughts), I tend to be peaceful.
But, during this state, if I encounter a situation that irks or annoys me, my reaction is much rasher or blunt than if I don't empty my mind.
For example, after emptying my mind, I saw my son standing in front of the TV, then I grabbed his arm and brushed him aside. I would not have done this if I had not emptied my mind.
Also, I noticed that my attention and concentration is much stronger after emptying my mind, but my compassion or empathy also gets reduced proportionately.
Can someone help?

Meditation is not something made to clear our thoughts, it is impossible to do so, thoughts come and go, they will never stop, maybe you can increase the gap between thoughts, that is possible, however this is not the main goal of meditation.
What you need to do is be mindful of your thoughts, be aware, see than as if you were anothet person, awake, dont judge them, dont cling to them, just see them as they are, arising and then going away, this is the nature of the mind. So, when anger comes just see it as anger, see how your body reacts, see how anger grows, see the triggers, feel the triggers... and understand this is anger, don't force it, its useless, don't try to stop it because it can come back even stronger, once you understand the nature of the thinking process and understand you are NOT your thoughts and they simply come and go, you will have a good insight.
I think you may be forcing too much, trying to cover anger, forcing gaps, forcing some kind of emptiness in your mind, I don't think it is the best thing to do.

As one Tibetan lama explained in one lecture I attended, this type of anger comes from attachment to a certain form of clarity.
Because in meditation you experience clarity born of unification of mind (lack of inner conflict), when in post-meditation a conflict between "is" and "should" arises, attachment to clarity leads to suffering, rejection of which then manifests as anger.
Read up on tanha (craving) and the second noble truth, then watch yourself carefully millisecond-by-millisecond and try to catch the moment just before the anger arises. For this to be possible you may have to establish mindfulness of body first.
More broadly, a usual problem with beginning meditators is so-called "spiritual materialism". If one sees oneself as (secretly) superior to others, one's practice becomes a (secret) way to confirm one's superiority. This leads to irritation due to (projected) imperfections of others. This is likely why your empathy is reduced. You should be stalking and murdering your ego, instead of feeding it.
Unfortunately with increased popularity of direct methods in the West, like meditation and chakras/energy-yoga, problems like yours are bound to get more common. Opening the floodgate of Emptiness without having built a strong foundation of Discipline can only lead to Rudrahood. I personally am a big proponent of at least 5 years of Sila practice before one is introduced to meditation or energy-yoga.

Andrei, +1. But re: your comment about 5 years of Sila. I'm increasingly of the opinion that that or something similar is spot on. And it may be that the lack of such preparatory work in a lot of western contexts is why we do hear occasionally of significant problems for some meditators. Is your advice coming from some formal aspect of your tradition; is it documented somewhere? Basically, where can I find out more about that idea?

@tkp this comes from experience, and kinda matches the path as it is presented in many traditions, but I don't remember anyone explicitly declaring "5 years of Sila, 5 years of Samadhi, 5 years of Prajna" or anything of this kind.

Hmm. I think I remember the Dalai Lama mentioning it but I can't remember where. It sounded like some Tibetan schools pretty much kept you away from meditation until you had a good grounding in study and, I'm guessing, morality. Shrug. But it does seem to make sense, in my gut :-)

The 4th paragraph is what I suffer from, thanks for the heads-up. A family member told me my empathy is reduced. I will be reading on spiritual materialism next.

Gone through the same thing, after meditation had a phone call where I was more angry and demanding that things be other than the way they are. I yelled easily at a person whereas usually I would not do that.
I looked this up and found an article, Allowing Things to Arise (from the book The Four Noble Truths -- Teachings by Ajahn Sumedho).
Reading it from time to time I should make a habit of it.
[...]

For example, when I first started meditating, I had the idea that meditation would make me kinder and happier and I was expecting to experience blissful mind states. But during the first two months, I never felt so much hatred and anger in my life. I thought, ‘This is terrible; meditation has made me worse.’ But then I contemplated why there was so much hatred and aversion coming up, and I realised that much of my life had been an attempt to run away from all that. I used to be a compulsive reader. I would have to take books with me wherever I went. Anytime fear or aversion started creeping in, I would whip out my book and read; or I would smoke or munch on snacks. I had an image of myself as being a kind person that did not hate people, so any hint of aversion or hatred was repressed.
This is why during the first few months as a monk, I was so desperate for things to do. I was trying to seek something to distract myself with because I had started to remember in meditation all the things I deliberately tried to forget. Memories from childhood and adolescence kept coming up in my mind; then this anger and hatred became so conscious it just seemed to overwhelm me. But something in me began to recognise that I had to bear with this, so I did stick it out. All the hatred and anger that had been suppressed in thirty years of living rose to its peak at this time, and it burned itself out and ceased through meditation. It was a process of purification.

[...]

Meditation isn't about clearing your mind or finding peace and happiness or love and compassion. Meditation is practiced so you can experientially come to understand the true nature of reality.
The true nature of reality is the Three Universal Characteristics ( impermanence, suffering and non-self) And the teaching of the Four Noble Truths will again, experientially, allow you to realize why the "ignorant" mind, the mind with wrong-view, will always lead to suffering.
Unfortunately, you have an "ignorant" mind, a mind which believes it can control things, a mind which is going against the natural law of the universe!!
And this is the reason why you are becoming angry and frustrated, it is because you don't yet see or understand how true reality works.
To quote Eckhart Tolle : "What could be more futile, more insane, than to create inner resistance to what already is? what could be more insane than to oppose life itself."
I hope this has helped!
Metta.

People who do meditation encounter this problem often.Do the meditation on loving kindness at least for ten minutes everyday.

Can I simply suggest you to do the 'Maiththree' meditation, which will help you to calm yourself and to love others, all other beings and to be peaceful with others. This will help you care for others and think about others than yourself while not taking any stress. But for one to do this it takes patients and dedication, but the results are fine. In one of lord Buddhas preachings, it was said that you cannot settle hatred\anger by hatred\anger but with love and kindness it will be done. Its like hitting a wall with a ball, till the wall bounces it back it will keep coming and will never end. But if someone makes a whole in the wall, the ball will not bounce back. No harm done. Its a bad example, but you get the idea.  Try to control it, you will succeed. Dont give up, nothing is easy in life and nothing comes free, you have to gain it.

You were angry whether your mind was empty or not.  You are angry that someone or some phenomena has disturbed your tranquility. It is your ego that is in question.  The great defender.  We are always empty minded.  Always.  It is the natural primordial state of mind. To revisit this state through meditation is understood yet futile.
It is a state that never leaves us only gets masked over.  If you have to reinvent the state of empty mindedness then you are fostering a delusion.  Better to visit your anger and your ego. Better to tame them both.    Meditation is always happening.  Living is meditation.  Calm breathing and relaxing the mind is our individual purpose for without doing that how can we function in a homeopathic demeanor ?
There are parts of ourselves that do not integrate into the here and now.  These states are real nontheless.  They are driven by our feelings that get pushed aside yet they do not go away.  Our organized selves, which the ego is the ceo, help us keep all organized and flowing... on the surface that is.  When these other states, from beneath the surface,  bubble up , they are cast off.  You are to tap into this and realize that the ego only helps us by working in the past or the future- interpreting the now in such a way that all has been symbolized and categorized in a associative way.
So we are herded into a world of anticipation or reflection but not real existence. Do not fret.  Find the anger.  No need to control.  Relinquish.   Present moment awareness.  Leave the coral.  Be free from your striving to become and realize that you already are.  Walk with meditation in mind rather than plan for a meditative experience that is flawed and conflicted.  Be peaceful and unfetterted and empty minded...it is who you are.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is sloth the same thing as torpor?
When considering the 5 hindrances I always come across the tiredness hindrance translated as sloth and torpor. Since it is always (in my experience) translated as two words does the sloth and torpor hindrance embody two related but distinct phenomena? Is sloth somehow different to torpor? Is the original Pali two terms or is it just one concept that is just always translated as the two words - sloth and torpor.

In Tibetan tradition torpor (Pali middha) is explained as heavy sleepiness, while sloth (Pali thina) is explained as laziness, lack of motivation.
So in case of sloth, you are not drowsy, just don't feel like striving. While in case of torpor, you kinda want to strive but can't, because your mind is so unwieldy.

They occur together hence why the words "Thina Midda" appear together and translated as Sloth and Torpor.

I find you can be lazy without being sleepy, and sleepy without being lazy.

These are separate things. Lazy in not exerting effort in keeping the right concentration and mindfulness can lead to this. General laziness is not the same, though this also makes you lethargic. Sleepy due to fatigue or because it is night time does not come under this also.

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


text:
Can a person reach enlightment living an average life, married with children?
As the Bodhisattva had to leave his wife and son behind to become the Buddha and as the monks do a similar thing (avoiding marriage etc), I would like to know if this is some kind of precondition to enlightment, if a being needs to stay away from his family for a while and avoid new karmic bonds (marriage/children) in his way to enlightment.

Dupe of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23/do-you-have-to-follow-a-monastic-lifestyle-to-attain-enlightenment ?

@AndreiVolkov it does seem very similar but this one is specifically about families so I'm not voting to close. Maybe OP can edit to make the difference clearer?

The short answer is Yes. Because enlightenment depends on neither external physical attributes, actions and circumstances nor knowledge and skills and even siddhi, but inner peace that one brings into the world. One's ability to be happy in every little moment and in every new things happening around and personally in one's life is important. Being in the very centre, in the heart of life, doing everything,  whether it is work, family or spiritual service; it's needed to keep staying not involved at the same time.
Not involved, in terms of not to be completely self-identified with these circumstances in order to keep clean mind, soft heart and good mood always. It's easier to do this when one is sitting in the cave alone, and it's harder and  challenging, and that's why is more valuable, living in the big city. We're born as humans, and humans live in society.

According to my understanding there are four stages of enlightenment.

Sotapatti
Sakadagami
Anagami
Arahant

So It is quite possible that a normal person can attend the Sotapatti state with the normal life style. In fact there were lot of lay people who attended these stages. Found this wiki page with lot of information about enlightened lay people according to various Suttas.

and how about the other stages?

some kind of precondition to enlightenment?
The only thing I think of is as lay Buddhist; Pāramitā

In Buddhism, these virtues are cultivated as a way of purification,
  purifying karma and helping the aspirant to live an unobstructed life,
  while reaching the goal of enlightenment.

In Jātaka tale (whether you want to believe it or not), there are many example of Buddha past life as normal human living with family and still fulfilling Pāramitā to attain enlightenment, and which is also true for many Buddha's disciples. The only story I can find for Pāramitā related Jātaka tales is Vessantara Jataka

Additional info:
From my Theravada understanding:
For Sotāpanna and Sakadagami, they may or may not stay with family. Most Sotāpanna that I heard from the text lived with their family. For example; Anathapindika and King Bimbisara
Another example is Visakha known to have a lot of great grandchildren. From page 981 of The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism
For Anāgāmi, they will never live as husband/wife
For Arahant, they will never stay with family.
Why?
Anāgāmi - already overcome sensual desire (kāmacchando) fetter
Arahant - who has eliminated all the unwholesome roots which underlie the fetters.


text:
Is there any truth in the legend about the birth of Siddhartha?
This Life of the Buddha (also mentioned among Wikipedia's Miracles of Gautama Buddha) says,

According to the legends about this birth, the baby began to walk seven steps forward and at each step a lotus flower appeared on the ground. Then, at the seventh stride, he stopped and with a noble voice shouted:

"I am chief of the world,
Eldest am I in the world,
Foremost am I in the world.
This is the last birth.
There is now no more coming to be."

However I feel like the legend is far-fetched from the truth. Any comments or alternative views are very welcome.

For me, it helped to compare the miraculous stories of the Bodhisatva's birth with the suttas that the mention how the Buddha aged and eventually died.

It depends what you mean by truth. If you mean did this actually occur then I would agree it does seem far fetched. However if you understand it as a myth then it will have truth. I think sometimes we understand myths as been basically being synonymous with fiction. However myths have a deeper truth that is relevant to the culture or society that it comes from. Authors such as Joseph Campbell go further and say that myths have a truth that cuts across cultures and societies - a comparative mythology.
The story above could be understood as a variant of the hero story which typically have miraculous or supernatural beginnings. The story of Christ could be understood in the same way (though obviously not everyone would be happy with this interpretation). This kind of comparative mythology can be seen in other places in the Buddha's life story. His enlightenment experience can be seen as occurring on the world navel (axis mundi) as well as more prosaically under the Bodhi tree.
Joeseph Campbells book, The Hero with a 1000 Faces, is a good place to start if you are interested in these ideas.

There are a lot of different stories regarding the Buddha, some of them became popular, but we know are not true, for example: He escaped in the middle of the night while no one was watching. We know he didn't scape like a prisoner, instead he cut his hair in front of his father, his father knew Siddharta was leaving to a homelessness life.
The birth and death of the Buddha have also the same issues with different versions, some say he was born from the arm of her mother, some say he walked before crawing, some say he spoke imeditialy without teeth, well, this is what I think is important: If the story is clear in the sutta pitaka, then you have a good basis to believe in it, if the story is just some popular story, then it is more suspicious.

Buddhism has been taught throughout centuries to people of different cultural backgrounds and intellectual capabilities.
Western people with critical minds who spent years at school read some legends with a pinch of salt. But they should accept it that for other people such stories make perfect sense, inspire them and bring them closer to enlightenment. Buddhism is like a pharmacy, we can't get all the teachings in one go, we only need some specific medicine to treat our individual illness. No need to elaborate on what other patients are taking.

Concerning the study of religion, an approach for historical accuracy is irrelevant. Most creation myths/stories contain their own disclaimers. . . its a myth/story. However in context of the religion the story may be evaluated. It does not need to hold to outside standards, but rather internally to the context of the religion.
One example would be that what was said in your example was not Siddhartha, but the Buddha speaking.  That the transcendent nature of the Buddha allowed him to express his nature and overcome the human limitations.
Another approach would be to examine the cultural significance of the reaction and make them a parable of the divine nature of Siddhartha. Many people point out that the 'seven days' of creation can be accepted into science by giving a god a 'cosmic' sense of time.  By attaching meanings to these actions these legends are not meant to carry the numerical truth, but rather a higher truth or knowledge.
But the question "Did Siddhartha live?" is one of history. The question of "Did [Mythical Religious leader] do [Action]?" becomes very touchy, and are usually studied without asking if they existed, but rather how their existence influenced a religion.
But with religious figures and the stories of their lives, it is better to separate historical from religious purposes.  So many people feel that adding a historical 'fact' to their beliefs will validate their beliefs.  And yet most people wish to ignore everything we call fact starts from belief in a thing called fact.
Look into philosophy and religious studies to see how beliefs are handled and keep in mind your beliefs on science are beliefs. Just because you believe in your history and data, does not trump another beliefs no matter how far fetched they are. Nobody has 'proven' gravity, history or even reality. The more you know, the more you are aware of how little we know.

If a question is being asked about the precise details of a purported factual event in historical time 2500 years ago, then there is no possible answer other than to say that there is no hope of ever confirming or denying any such thing on that level. There are no video recordings left over from 2500 years ago, and so on. The kinds of evidence that one might take as strictly definitive simply do not exist.
I'd suggest a "middle way" between two extremes of doubt and credulity. Doubt says, I know how the world works; and this doesn't accord with what I know, so it's wrong, wrong, wrong.  Credulity says I'm desperate for something to believe in to make me feel like there's something special out there to hold on to, so I'm going to rabidly defend all the myths against any kind of interpretation or anything short of my own strict literalism. Either one of these extremes are really just manifestations of some kind of neuroticism and suffering. A flexible mind simply must accept that no solid answer is possible.  Conversely, opening up to the uncertainty is a good exercise for making the mind more flexible.
Another good exercise in flexibility is understanding context.  So probably don't say you believe this story when you are in the context of, say, a job interview for a position as a scientist...

That story might be from a Jataka tale, or (I'm not sure which) from the introduction to the Jatakas.
This ...
BUDDHIST BIRTH-STORIES
(JATAKA TALES)
The Commentarial Introduction Entitled
NIDANA-KATHA
THE STORY OF THE LINEAGE
... says (on pages 154-155),

Thousands of world-
  systems became visible to him like a single open
  space. Men and devas offering him sweet-smelling
  garlands, said : " great man, there is no other like
  thee, how then a greater ? " Searching the ten
  directions 1 and finding no one like himself, he took
  seven strides, saying : " This is the best direction."
  And as he walked the Great Brahma held over him
  the white umbrella, and the Suyama followed him
  with the fan, and other devas with the other symbols
  of royalty in their hands. Then, stopping at the
  seventh step, he sent forth his noble voice and shouted
  the shout of victory, beginning with : "I am the
  chief of the world."

There's a footnote:

The Madurattha Vilasini adds the rest : " I am supreme in
  the world ; this is my last birth ; henceforth there will be no
  rebirth for me."

The "Madhuratthavilasini" is apparently a commentary on the Buddhavamsa (which like the Jataka tales is in the Khuddaka Nikaya).
There's another topic (question and answers) here, about the Jataka stories: Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?

It depends on how 'far-fetched' your definition of far-fetched is.
In islamic scripture, Mohamed rides a flying animal (the 'buraq') to heaven. If you think it makes sense, then it make sense.

Could all the myths of the Buddha story, was actually some symbolises of the Buddha? For eg, there were lotus lotus flower blooming from the ground when baby prince siddhattha walked oon the 7 steps, symbolised the purity of the Buddha. The Brahma and devas holding the baby prince siddhattha, symbolised the noble of the Prince Siddhattha(later the Buddha) or symbolised the Prince Siddhattha(later the Buddha)  was respected by the nobles. The words "I‘m the cheif of the world…" spoken by the baby siddhatha symbolised the noble and mighty of his future. I‘m not sure whether am my prediction correct or wrong. I think all this myths that don‘t seem possible in realistic life, might only be the symbols and metaphor that describes the Buddha.
In some story, Prince Siddhartha was born under the right arm of his mother,Queen Maya.This does not seems right to logically and is hard to believe. But if you have understand some of the cultures of India; this will be easier to understand. In India, there are cultures of 4 classes in the society. The highest class is the Brahmins ( families of Brahmin priests), 2nd class is Kshatriyas (families of royals and warriors), 3rd class is Vaishyas (families of skilled traders, merchants), and lowest class is Shudras (unskilled workers). It is pass down by the lineage of the family; that means the descendants from a lowest class family will always be in the lowest class in his whole lifetime, the descendants from the higher class family will always be in the higher class, regardless of his acquired efforts he have made.The lineages are pass down through generations, that means if the grandfather is a lower class people, his children, his grandchildren will also considered to be a lower class people in their lifetime. The higher classes will get more respect from others; where the lowest class will hardly get respect from others, especially it is hard to get respect from the highest classes. They believed that their religion the Brahma god created everythings,so in their cultures, to symbolize their classes; the highest class of Brahmins was say to be born from the mouth of Brahma God, 2nd class of the royals and warriors was say to be born under the arm of the Brahma God, the 3rd class of skillful people or merchants etc. was say to be born from the belly of Brahma god(this ones not too sure), the lowest class of servants was say to be born from the knees of Brahma god. Thus, in some stories saying that the Prince Siddhattha was born through the arm of Queen Maya , I think this was just to symbolise that he was from the 2nd class of the royals family; where in India traditional cultures, they symbolise the classes just as the 2nd class of royals and warriors was born through the arm if Brahma god. Therefore, I think this was just a symbolisation of the Buddha. Not really a baby was delivered from the arm of the Queen in realistic life.
Maybe in the olden days, people liked to describe things through symbolises and metaphor, instead of telling things in a straight forwards manner. Thus, all the myths of the Buddha, might be some symbolises and metaphors that represented the Buddha‘s life, his background, his thoughts and his teachings.

dear friend, it is not good to attach the word "Myth" to a such a holy one's life. I guess that's why the answer was down voted. The birth story is not symbolism. It is taken as facts and historic records.


text:
Are ecological concerns supported explicitly in Buddhism?
Many practising Buddhists that I know also have strong ecological concerns. Is this concern for 'green' issues part of Buddhism or do the two things just attract the same kind of people i.e. people that like Buddhism also like green issues. Specifically does concern for the environment have any basis in canonical texts or commentaries or is it a modern development?

17th Karmapa is very vocal about ecological concerns, perhaps more than any other major Buddhist figurehead so far

Here I just want to know, does Buddha given any specific teachings to save about environmental issues.
Its true that, environment need to be taken care.

I've found some quotes from the Pali Canon that do seem to address ecological concerns directly.
Dhammapada
There is a story from a Dhammapada commentary about Ananda receiving 500 robes and his recycling plans - to quote a part of it

What will you do with the old garments
We will make bed covers out of them
What will you do with the old bed covers
We will make pillow cases with them
What will you do with the old pillow cases
We will make floor covers out of them
[and so on]

Source for the quote is Puja Readings and Other Texts as used in the Triratna Buddhist Community pp 121. Unfortunately the quote doesn't appear to be on Access to Insight (well I can't find it) however this link gives details of the Dhamapada commentorial account as well as related stories in the Jataka and Vinaya.
Vinaya
There is also a reference in the vinaya in the Living Plant chapter which may speak to environmental concerns

Should any bhikkhunī knowingly pour water containing living beings —
  or have it poured — on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed.

According to the same Triratna book (pp 117) the commentary says that because of the Pali syntax the rule can be read both ways - so that pouring grass or clay into water is also to be confessed - i.e. water should not be polluted.
This interpretation comes from Thanissaro in The Buddhist Monastic Code however it has been commented on another question that Thanissaro's translations can be particular

I've awarded myself the answer here (controversial maybe). But I encourage anyone to improve on this or correct me on this one - I'm no Pali canon expert. I'm very happy to give the answer elsewhere.

AFAIK there aren't any explicit references in the scriptures to ecological concerns and sustainability. I guess that in the days of the Buddha, there weren't many problems in that area. The ideas behind sustainability aren't new, but it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century (the energy crises in the 70s) that they became more prominent and that the growth of the entire human population and increased resource consumption were seen as a potential major problem for mankind.
I think what makes environmentalism and sustainability so interesting for Buddhists (or the other way around?) is that several main ideas are rather similar, or at least in line with each other.
For example, the Buddha taught that everything, all life, is connected (dependent origination). Also there is no self, the self only exists in dependence upon causes and conditions (anatman). This means that if you damage the Earth then you indirectly are also damaging a part of yourself.
Buddhism also teaches us that we should take the middle way, lead a simple life, don't engage in addictive behavior or excessive consumption, be kind to others. These ideas are also prominent in sustainability. We shouldn't waste resources and should try to improve the living conditions for everyone, not just the rich people living in the Western world.
So to answer your question; I think Buddhism and environmentalism/sustainability just attract the same kind of people. People that really care for the well-being of others.
BTW, being a protem moderator of the Sustainable Living SE site, I can't resist making at least one reference to that site here. ;-)

Sorry - I've foubd some direct quotes from the Pali canon that I think so speak to ecological concerns. So I'm going to give that the answer for now - unless anyone can improve on it. Thank you for the answer though - I appreciate it.

One of the basic and profound teachings in Buddhism is about the 'precious human body'. Practitioners contemplate on how rare it is to be reborn as a human and how easy it is to lose life. Some may also know 18 qualities of human life (8 freedoms and 10 endowments). A well-functioning body is a great tool that will help us to reach progressive stages of realisation and once we deeply realise that, we will naturally be taking care of our body. Nowadays going 'green' is one of the ways to lead a healthier lifestyle and I suppose that is why many Buddhists choose to do so.
The difference is that some of the ecology-loving people treat the green issues as a goal rather than a tool. Buddhists should strive to have clean environment not because it is nice to have it but because such conditions are beneficial on their way to enlightenment. The teachings on emptiness tell us that on the absolute level everything is pure and beyond 'good' or 'bad' so even during the nuclear winter we can still reach enlightenment.

Notice that back then, humans were yet to possess the kind of technologies capable of screwing up the environment at such stupendous pace and scale as in the 21st century. Everything was bio-degradable. There was no plastic, nuclear wastes, fracking, oil drilling, massive fossil fuel burning, etc. So the problem didn't exist to require a specific teaching about it. Obviously if the Buddha was around today, He would've given teaching about the importance of keeping a safe and clean environment.

According to Dhammapada 44 & 45, Buddha doesn't encourage to about concerning about earth
http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=044

The Buddha taught Dhp verses 44/45 in a very specific context: He saw those Bhikkhus engaging in iddle chatter and hence the need to focus attention back to subject of meditation. It's completely wrong to use verses 44/45 as an excuse to ignore the earth and all the ongoing environmental issues humans are creating.

The Buddha made remarks (for lay people) about conserving wealth; for example, the Sigalovada Sutta warns against squandering wealth.
That sutta doesn't mention the environment, but modern environmentalists or economists say that degrading the environment (and other activities including the exploitation of fossil fuels, deforestation, mining, any "unsustainable" levels of fishing, etc.) is equivalent to spending capital rather than spending income ... and that we ought to be living sustainably, consuming renewable income rather than unrenewable capital.

The Buddha also made remarks about being harmless, not killing, allowing other being to live free from fear.
Again I'm not aware of his saying that in an "environmental" context, but according to environmentalists, there is such a thing as being "harmful to the environment" which isn't the same as being "harmless" or "saving the environment"; and that destruction of natural habitat and indigenous wildlife is "killing".

Lastly, there are many comments from monks (not, as far as I know, from the Buddha himself, but from monks) about some environment or other being pleasant: of enjoying the smell of a forest at night, and so on.

The path of all Buddhas is summarised as: (1) do not do evil; (2) do good; & (3) purify the mind. Purifying the mind means giving up attachment to the world. But this does not stop one from doing good. When the mind is free from attachment, it has few needs & even less wants. Therefore, the Buddhist path by nature looks after the environment & the planet as best as possible.
The Buddha taught it is right view to regard everything received as a 'gift' or 'benefaction' (MN 117), which gives rise to a reciprocal obligation in return. This includes the natural environment as a benefactor. In Pali, the word for gratitude means: "what is received; what must be done in return".
In the Vinaya (page 446) of the monks, there are rules about not polluting crops, water & other natural things that are required to support life.
Based in the Puttamansa Sutta, each day monks & some lay people reflect they use food, clothing, shelter & medicine merely to support the spiritual path & not for play, not for intoxication & not for beautification.

Sorry for additional questions but I'm not sure I understand your 2nd paragraph. When you mention MN 117, were you thinking of the sentence which here is translated, "There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed"? I think I've read of monks wanting to be worthy of the gifts they receive from laypeople ... are you saying there's something somewhere, which should be understood as laypeople being grateful for and repaying "gifts" which they receive from the environment? What is the Pali word for "gratitude"?

MN 117. Yes. There is no direct teaching I know regarding the environment but it is a general principle. This is a common teaching for lay people (eg MN 60). From "there is what is given" comes the next part: "There is mother & father" (benefactors; the givers; which can include mother earth) & "there is good & bad karma" ( reciprocal obligations, per DN 31, six directions). Gratitude = katannukatavedi = One who is grateful and repays the done favour from AN 2.31-32 Kataññu Suttas . Pali is kataññutā kataveditā: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.031.than.html

Buddhism attracts those that are keenly aware and concerned for the welfare of all sentient beings. With half the species extinct and more to follow, how can a Buddhist ignore environmental issues.
By all the environmental affects including climate change, the suffering of billions of people will increase. Avoiding harm is a major precept of Buddhism.

No buddhism didn't teach it.
But by the path it self are conserve enough.
Industries happen by greediness of people.
If you look carefully you'll see it's the starting point of every environmental problems.

there is this verse:

The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality, not the beautiful
sensual pleasures found in the world. The passion for his resolves is
a man's sensuality. The beauties remain as they are in the world,
while the wise, in this regard, subdue their desire.

it's not explicit but it can be inferred rather easily

Yes.. In some places Buddha has taught his followers to not to pollute the environment.

Can you identify or reference some of those places?

Vinaya: Four: The 3 Miscellaneous Rules: page 446: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1.pdf

In the five precepts, the rule to abstain from stealing implies honesty, respect for the possessions of others, and concern for the natural environment. Also filling selves with loving kindness means a concern for the welfare and happiness of all living beings as well as for the protection of our natural environment.

Also a concern for the environment is shown, if you read in the 'Vinaya' - the section,"A PUPIL'S DUTIES AS ATTENDANT TO HIS MENTOR." This is still practiced to the letter, in places like the 'Mahamevnawa' in Sri Lanka. Also Thai Bhikkus of the Forest Tradition is a good example. Ex. Ajaan Mun was extremely meticulous, very clean about everything. Even living out in the forest in the dry season when there was a lot of dust, his hut and everything around it was very neat, very clean. Everything was in its right place.

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


text:
Is there an intermediate state between death and rebirth in Theravada tradition?
The Tibetan book of the dead is very famous and widely known, but how about rebirth in the Theravada tradition? Is there anything similar to an intermediate dimension or does death automatically lead to rebirth?

When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fueled by craving382. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.
— SN 44:9 The Debating Hall
  (Bodhi, from SuttaCentral)

And another:

Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time.
— SN 44:9 Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta
  (Thanissaro, from Access to insight)

Here's Bhikku Bodhi's note #382 in his printed edition of the Saṃyutta Nikāya:

Tam ahaṃ taṇhūpādānaṃ vadāmi. The Buddha’s statement seems to imply that a temporal gap can intervene between the death moment and reconception. Since this contradicts Theravāda orthodoxy, Spk contends that at the death moment itself the being is said to be “not yet reborn” because the rebirth-consciousness has not yet arisen.

So on the one hand, there's Theravadin orthodoxy which denies it. On the other, there are passages in the Pāli canon, as above, which could be taken to support it.
I personally take the passage above as literal and that the Buddha says some kind of state between death and birth exists, without being specific as to how long it is.
Other resources I found when searching:

Rebirth and the in-between state in Early Buddhism by Sujato
Dhammawheel.com post on the subject
Google cache of a thread on dhammawheel.net discussing the same subject

In this last link, one of the posts as dhammawheel.net mentions, very apropos of Bodhi's comment on Spk:

The main reason the commentaries go to lengths to deny a bardo is because it's inconsistent with the scholastic Abhidhamma framework, and the associated notion of a single moment of rebirth-linking consciousness.


text:
Is Practicing Tantric/Wrathful Meditation Dangerous Without a Guru?
Some time ago, I found a mala in a shop that I was quite drawn to for reasons I cannot explain. At the time I thought it was wood but as the stain wore off I saw it was bone. This lead me to do some research into Bone Malas and I learned about tantric buddhism and wrathful meditation. This in turn lead me to a mantra I started repeating with the mala 108 times every day. Everything I read said I needed a master or guru to help initiate or guide me. So my question is how dangerous is this? Do I need a guru, and how on earth does one get initiated into a a type of buddhism?

This is like with children playing doctor: most of the imitation activity they can come up with is going to be harmless, but if they get their hands on real medications and start actually taking them at random, then they can get into real trouble.
Similarly with Tantra, as long as all you do is mindlessly repeat some mantras and get a tattoo of a wrathful deity on your arm, you'll be alright. But if you were to read some serious self-visualization guidelines and started imagining yourself as a random yidam, then you might very likely exhaust all your energy and consequently die, or worse, get stuck in a nightmarish realm.
What's nice about gurus, they know what you need to do, and most importantly why. In other words, they see your energy configuration, and they know what the right configuration looks like.
The easiest way to get initiated into tantric Buddhism, is to go to a lecture of a local Tibetan lama and sign up for an interview (it is he who interviews you, not the other way around). Based on the interview, if you look serious enough, and most importantly cooperative enough that the guru won't have to argue with you over every little practice ("why do I have to do 100,000 prostrations?!") -- then you may get accepted for a Ngöndro course. (Many teachers tend to have all their new students begin NGondro at the same time, so you may hear "Lama such-and-such accepts students for a new NGondro, to start the next spring.") Ngondro may take anywhere from one to three years during which you will not see anything remotely exciting or interesting. If you have enough diligence to last through Ngondro, and you prove yourself as smart enough to pick up hints and subtleties, but also psychologically stable enough, then you might be accepted into an actual tantra.

That was incredibly helpful thank you! So to iterate on your point of finding a teacher, is there a larger resource for finding lectures or should I just google it? Thank you again for your thoughtful response!

I used to like http://www.buddhanet.net/wbd/ but they are now blocked by Google due to virus concerns. Other than that, googlemapping "buddhism" should get you the temples, then find their web sites and/or subscribe to a mailing list.

Thanks @Andrei, I found a monthly meeting group, in a Naharu

+1 to Andrei's answer. I'd like to add just one thing, which is that yes, it is hard to find someone to play the role of the guru for tantric practice. In America in particular, there's a tendency for ordinary people to fall into one of two extremes: extreme independence, individualism, and mistrust of spiritual authority; or, when one encounters a "guru" who triggers something inside you, extreme devotion and mindless abnegation of self.
I'll briefly comment on why I am comfortable with my guru.

At the outermost level, I have examined his background and training and I know that he is highly educated in the traditions that I'm interested in, which in my case is all the Tibetan traditions, Buddhist and Bon. At this point I've had enough years to study some of the texts in these traditions, and I recognize that the stuff he seems to know accords and complements with my own readings of the texts. So I trust his intellectual knowledge.
At a more inner level, I've known him long enough to feel that he is kind. You know how some of your friends you trust to bail you out when you really, really need it? They might be jokers or goof-offs, but you know that when push comes to shove, they got your back. Over time and experience, I developed this sense of trust in the guru's compassion for me. This doesn't mean he goes around feeding every single puppy and starving baby in the world until he collapses from exhaustion; if he did, then he wouldn't be much good to me or any of his other formal students. But his kindness for his own circle is certain.
At the very subtle or secret level, when I examine the, shall we say, "epic narrative" of my life, my own personal conclusion is that it looks like I was seeking wisdom, and gradually came closer and closer, and eventually developed a stable personal relationship with a teacher. The story plays right with my intuition. I can't explain that more specifically except to say that it was a natural development; it's not like I dropped acid then took off all my clothes and moved to another continent and then said "hey look I found my guru!" I mean, if that really works for you, I'm not judging; my point is simply that this connection arose fairly smoothly and naturally for me (although it took many years).

To round out that general set of principles, a couple other tidbits I think are important are:

As Andrei says, if you're at a loss for where to start, then a formal Ngondro with a Tibetan lama is a good way to go. Ngondro doesn't require a strict samaya (vows of devotion to the guru), so you can start the Ngondro and still keep your eyes open as you intelligently evaluate the situation.
Watch out for Westerners who call themselves gurus. At the risk of exoticism, I will say frankly and honestly that although I have encountered many, many Western students of Buddhism who have wonderful hearts and great insight as guides, I have yet to encounter more than I can count on one hand of Westerners who appear (or even who have a reputation for) legitimately having mastered the kind of advanced tantric practices that the OP is asking about. It's just not there yet.  Tantric Buddhism has been available to Americans for what, 30 or 40 years? That's not really that long. It's not a huge strike against us that it hasn't fully taken root yet.  I know that my lama is very clear that his deepest heartfelt desire is to transmit his lineage to his Western students so that the teaching lineage can really take root here, and I imagine that many other Tibetan lamas feel the same way. I honestly don't think they're holding out on us. (Well, maybe some of them are.) But it's a challenging task; the teaching has to happen across a pretty wide gulf of language and culture, and it's no surprise that it would be a slow process.
Beware of "peak experiences". Just because someone facilitates a peak experience for you, doesn't mean they're a qualified guru. You might feel amazing in ways you never imagined possible, but trust me, I can give you drugs that will take you even farther, and then when you come back to Earth I'm still just some dude on the internet, so please don't give me all your money and devote your life to me just because I spent time in the rave scene in the '90s when the E was pure.  (Note: I'm referring to the saga of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in Oregon, a noted case of cult-building through drug sacraments. It happens.)

+1 to this. Can I just say that well thought out and comprehensive answers like this are amazing. Even though we are a little site I think it's content like this that will really bring life to the site. Same for Andrei's content as well! Thank you

Thank you for your thoughtful response, it will definitely be helpful to me when looking for a guru. A guide I have never had before.


text:
Did the Buddha approved the idea of a council or was it a decision made after he passed away?
I would like to know if the idea of having a council was something suggested by the Buddha, also I would like to know if he had any influence in the way the teachings are currently grouped.

The Buddha's final exhortation was for his monks to rely primarily upon themselves and their own memory as the means to guide them:

Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, that his body is more comfortable.
Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
—Maha-parinibbana Sutta, DN 16

If you tell your followers to be "islands unto yourselves," can that be construed as "after my death, gather together a council of arahants"?
It seems that the Buddha wanted no central authority at all after he was gone.

Good point, my interpretation of "islands unto yourself" is something like: "Only you can help yourself", it has to do with Kamma and the right effort one should make in the path to enlightment.


text:
Predetermined future vs. Free will in Buddhism
In Buddhism we are encouraged to make the right choices, make the right effort, keep morality etc. it feels like our future is open. Kamma also points to that direction. The future will be created according to our actions!
On the other hand, on several occasions, the Buddha spoke about the future as if it were predetermined. A few examples: Person A will become a Buddha, true Dhamma will be replaced, people will live only 10 years, Maitreya Buddha will come etc.
It can be confusing! Is the future open? Do we know that some things will happen no matter what? Are they irreversible?

I think the best answer to this is in the concept of "noble silence" which is often described when the Buddha was asked such questions.  Basically what it comes down to is, are you looking for answers to a lot of philosophical questions? If that's your main interest, then go to grad school in philosophy. On the other hand, if you're looking for guidance in a system of mental (and, sometimes, body) techniques that help you lighten up, not take yourself and your drama so seriously, and be kinder to other people, then buddhism may be able to provide that for you. As with everything else, though, there are no guarantees in life.
Now, hopefully that serves as a caveat that there isn't such a thing as a definitive buddhist answer to such metaphysical questions, (or a definitive answer, period) but I'll provide my own best shot at an answer. Free will and determinism don't have to be black and white.  You feel like you could freely choose to walk any direction you want at the next moment, but actually you can't choose to walk straight up or down. There are some choices you get to make, and others that are constrained by causes and conditions. From a buddhist perspective, walking up and down is less important than the inner psychological constraints on your freedom that occur from your own afflictive emotions (klesha). So in some sense, you could say that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to help you move farther towards free will by dissolving or otherwise getting past the inter constraints of karma in your own mind, and in your chain of dependent origination.

Dear Friend, despite the beautiful text about Buddhist practices, I think you didn't touch the point very much, maybe you could elaborate more, please let me be clear that I am not look for philosophical questions or complex einsten theories here, Im discussing Buddhist texts and their consequences, so I think it can be classified as a Buddhist talk, anyway thanks for the answer

Let's say you're studying pottery and throwing a vase on the potter's wheel. Your teacher comes over and says "Too thin. This will collapse in the kiln."
The teacher has not predetermined the destruction of your pot, merely used his accrued experience and skill to predict an outcome.
Presumably the Buddha knew enough to predict who would be a future Buddha, how many future lifetimes they would have, how many centuries the dhamma would last after his death, etc.

This is definitely one of those things you'll need to figure out by yourself:

Are there events that happen without cause?
If every event happens due to a cause, can universe be nondeterministic?
Why is making choices critically important, whether the universe is deterministic or not?
What is the difference between absolute and relative perspective?
If universe was indeed deterministic why would Buddha still be a vocal opponent of fatalism?

DN 2 The Fruits of the Contemplative Life
Makkhali Gosala said ... There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused, nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no effort, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, and nature ...
AN 3.135 A blanket made of hair
Bhikkhus, ...  of various recluses,
  Makkhali's view is the most miserable. Bhikkhus, Makkhali the foolish
  man is of this view: There is no action, there is nothing done, there
  is no effort.
  ...
  Bhikkhus, a net thrown at the mouth of the river ensnares many fish,
  to their ill fate, unpleasantness and disaster in the same manner
  Makkhali the foolish man's net entices many sentient beings, to their
  ill fate, unpleasantness and disaster.

What matters most in Buddhism is not a metaphysical declaration ("there is free will!", "there is no free will!"), but the practical implications of adopting it. In sutras, Buddha often explains what happens to people who view things one way or another.
What would happen if we were to absolutely deny free will? Would we even try to improve our condition? Hardly!
What would happen if we were to absolutely affirm free will? Would we realize that people sometimes act not because they choose so, but under toxic influence of an emotion? Probably not. Would we understand how our choices are always influenced by the environment, and decide to avoid those influences that are harmful, and to increase exposure to beneficial influences? Unlikely.
That's why in Buddhism, we prefer to avoid making blanket statements like there is or there is no free will. We say: there is karma, our future depends on our past AND on decisions made in the present. If this was not so, we would not be able to end the suffering of samsara. On the other hand, we don't make an error of considering the so-called "subject" an independent entity, either. The world is a continuous network of causes/effects, with no gap between "inner" and "outer", BUT it is still up to every single practitioner (an "I") to make choices towards healthier life and cessation of suffering.

Do we know that some things will happen no matter what?

Indeed we do! We are all going to die one day, no matter what! Humans and animals age, no matter what! If a person dies with craving/ignorance still present in the mind, he/she will be born again, no matter what! If a person commits one of the 5 great sins, he/she can't attain Nibbana within the same life and will be born in hell the next life, no matter what! If a person becomes Sothapanna, he/she will attain Nibbana within 7 lives, no matter what! The world will come to an end one day, no matter what! Likewise, if a Bodhisattva gets the confirmation from a Buddha that he will become a Buddha in the future, it will happen no matter what!
If there are irreversible causes present for something to happen, you can't prevent it from happening. But that doesn't mean all causes are irreversible. So for certain things, the future is written in stone. Others you can change or influence.

It is useful to believe that we do have self will to the degree that we have the capacity to do wrong. We can feed our negative energies like sloth, torpor, ill will, anger etc. By not doing wrong we automatically do right. Which is why the sila is a list of prohibitions or inactions, and not a list of mandatory actions.
A notable feature of spiritual growth is the dropping away of self will. If one no longer thinks in terms of "I", that is really good progress. That is not an argument for a magical or fatalistic world view however.
Self will is only one of the several variables determining any outcome.
Sitting in meditation is a simple but good example. There are times when one desires a specific meditative state, puts in the necessary effort to attain it, and it has come to nought, the mind simply won't cooperate. There are other times when one has been scarcely seated in any deep concentration and the meditation automatically pays dividends beyond belief.
Ordinary mortals can predict the future too. Almanacs predict the time of sunrise with a knowledge of astronomy. Any of us can predict rain when we see a stormy sky. However in most walks of life we don't know what's going to happen next because we are ignorant of so many causes and conditions.
Buddhas and arhats predict the future by possessing an understanding of all the variables of reality. There is no magic.
The future depends on causes and conditions, if the dependant conditions change, the future changes.

In my opinion as Buddhism accepts the law of karma or 'what you saw is what you will reap' principle, it accepts the notion of free will. Destiny is created by the person himself.

A very good question,here is the answer.
First thing about the future as to Buddhism is that it is not completely fixed or completely open.
Here's an example...
If you toss a coin you know

It is going to fall down to earth
It could give either "Head" or "Tail"

(A)
The coin falling down is the fixed future,the coin is influenced by a natural force that we call gravity.So without any doubt and even before it happens you can say that the coin is going to fall.This is the technique used by Lord Buddha when predicting fixed future (Looking at the variables of an event an use logic and the reach of Buddha's mind to predict the conclusion).
(B)
But you can't predict the side of the coin whether it is going to be "Head" or "Tail".Now you see some room for action.This is when a Lord Buddha change the future events.When it is possible to make a positive change in a chain of events.
Let me provide some examples to the above (A) and (B) to make things more clear.
Example for (A)
If you see the story of "Devadatta thero" (the one who wanted to harm the life of Lord Buddha) you see a very good example for (A).
One day the question was asked from lord Buddha "Why Lord Buddha didn't helped Devadatta thero to become better."
Lord Buddha said "I wanted to help,i looked for any opportunity tosave him from what he would do.But it was clear that there is no helping Devadatta."
Here lord Buddha had to accept the future.
Example for (B)
When Lord Buddha saw that "Angulimaala" (The one who killed people to collect fingers) is about to kill his mother who will enter the forest to see him.Lord Buddha went there and stopped it.This event caused a nice chain reaction ("Angulimaala" became the famous "Angulimaala arahant").
This is a good example to a "Modifiable future".
So the conclusion is....
Future is not fully fixed or fully open.There is free will. But free will also make no difference (see how "Devadatta thero" time and time again to harm lord Buddha using his free will and choice,His free will did not make any difference).
Future is not predetermined.Some events are in a possibility that is so unchangeable,this is what causes the Fixed future.But some events are with certain variables that can be exploited to make a positive change in the events to occur,This makes the changeable future.
If you have any questions regarding the answer please leave a comment.
May triple gems bless you!

The Buddha taught the Middle Way. The Middle Way is free of the concepts of "free will" and "determinism". Both are true. Both are untrue. And yes it is confusing, but when one walks down the path of the Middle Way one has to leave their ideas and attachments of labels like "free will" behind. This is highly stressed in Zen. Zen practitioners use koans to help them transcend the unease and confusion of nonattachment to labels and ideas. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is one of the most widely known koan. Either way, being confused is a great state to be at.
I am studying equanimity (upeksha) right now. My zen teacher calls equanimity "letting go".
Upeksha means equanimity, nonattachment, nondiscrimination,even-mindedness, or letting go. Upa means "over,"and iksh means "to look." You climb the mountain to be able to look over the whole situation, not bound by one side or the other.


text:
How would I know if I was suffering from spiritual materialism?
How would I know if I was suffering from spiritual materialism as detailed in Chögyam Trungpa's book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism? Would there be signs that I could recognise in myself and if so what would the signs be? Or is it something that is only evident to other people. Would I need to be told of my condition by a teacher or close friend?

You absolutely can recognize it in yourself. Not only can, you definitely should put effort in doing so -- it makes a huge difference in one's practice (from my own experience being a student).
Spiritual Materialism, (or we could call it Spiritual Accumulation or Spiritual Aggrandizement or Spiritual Indulging) is a tendency of samsaric mind to use spirituality (in its general sense, as an antonym of worldliness) as food for one's ego. Until the illusion of ego disintegrates, that is all the way until Enlightenment, ego uses all kinds of tricks to sustain itself, up to and including Buddhism.
Here are some of telltaling signs you are suffering from S.M. (you don't need to have them all, one is enough):

You surround yourself with Buddhist paraphernalia (tangkas, statues, prayer wheels, bumper stickers, incense, mantra CDs, tattoos, themed handbags) or you despise people who surround themselves with paraphernalia, for being too superficial;
You enjoy Buddhist workshops and lectures as socializing events, or when others enjoy Buddhist workshops and lectures as socializing events, you stay on sidelines, secretly despising everyone for not being serious about Dharma;
You are too interested in levels of realization and how yourself measure up; or you never think about levels of realization, "because advanced practitioners are above that kind of stuff".
You are eager to study obscure Buddhist philosophy and feel that understanding technicalities of Dharma makes you a better practitioner; Or you despise people who indulge in Buddhist philosophical speculation and instead take pride in being a Zen or Tantra student.
You are snappy and irritated with worldly people with their childish interests; Or you are being a super-nice or super-humble selfless holy Bodhisattva, while secretly enjoying the glow of your halo;

Or you contribute to Buddhism SE - a lot. Seriously we are #2 and #3 users respectively. I'm sure you're OK but I worry about myself. Though I'm genuinely not hung up about the rep - I just like to contribute

That said vote up all my posts please :-)

That's right, you got it :) My advice for prophylactics against S.M. is to do something contrary once in a while. Like neglect Buddhism SE for a week. Then again, I might be plotting out of competitiveness ;)

You guys are so funny. I would say that denial would be a warning sign that the ego is trying to hide something.


text:
What are the requirements or preconditions for someone to ordain?
Can a person ordain at any age? Can he or she have children? In a nutshell, what are the things that will not allow someone to ordain?

Disclaimer: This is the current knowledge I have on the Theravadin tradition.
Here is a summary that answers your question:

Becoming a Novice
The first part of the ordination procedure for bhikkhus is known as
  the Going Forth into Homelessness (pabbajjaa). If it finishes with
  just that — without going on to the Questioning of the candidate and
  the Acceptance of him by all the gathered bhikkhus into the Bhikkhu
  Sa"ngha — the candidate is known as a saama.nera or novice. This is
  usually the case when the candidate is less than the twenty years of
  age necessary to become a bhikkhu. A very young boy is not allowed to
  become a novice either, but the minimum age will vary according to
  place.
A saama.nera wears the 'yellow robe' like a full bhikkhu — except he
  does not have the sa"nghaa.ti (double-thickness robe) — and leads a
  very similar life. In some places a period as a novice forms part of
  the preliminary training to become a bhikkhu, while some men decide to
  remain saama.nera for various reasons. The saama.nera keeps the Ten
  Precepts and the 75 Training Rules (sekhiya) and some other rules of
  the bhikkhu. Later, when he is ready and if he is old enough, he can
  ask the bhikkhu community for full ordination (upasampadaa).
Becoming a Bhikkhu
In the Pali texts, when a man decided to become a bhikkhu, he is often
  quoted as saying: "Confined is the household life, a path of dust; the
  going forth is open and spacious. Not easy is it living in a house to
  lead the religious life absolutely fulfilled and purified, as polished
  as mother-of-pearl. Suppose I were to shave off my hair and beard,
  clothe myself in ochre robes and go forth from homelife into
  homelessness?" (HS ch.19)
However, anyone wishing to become a bhikkhu must fulfill certain
  conditions about which he will be questioned during the actual
  ordination procedure. The candidate must be male and at least twenty
  years old. He must never have committed any grievous crimes and, if
  previously ordained, he must not have been guilty of any Defeater
  (Paaraajika) offences or have entered some other religion without
  disrobing first. He should also be of good
  reputation; fit and healthy enough to carry out the duties of a
  bhikkhu; not in debt; not subject to government service; and have
  permission from parents or guardian.
The Ordination ceremony requires a prescribed boundary (siima), a
  preceptor (upajjhaaya) and a quorum of bhikkhus to validate the formal
  Sangha Act. In the formal procedure the candidate is examined as to
  the necessary qualities and, if all the bhikkhus are satisfied,
  they receive him into the Sangha, the Community of Bhikkhus.
It is in this way that yet another link is added to the
  bhikkhu-lineage. Henceforth, the new bhikkhu can participate (and make
  up the necessary quorum) in future assemblies and help receive other
  new bhikkhus — as bhikkhus have continued to do for two and a half
  thousand years. (See EV,I,p.4; OP)
When a candidate requests full admission to the Community (after
  the saama.nera ordination) he does not make any 'lifetime vows' but
  offers himself for training and instruction under his Preceptor's
  guidance. At the end of the ordination ceremony, the Preceptor will
  immediately instruct the new bhikkhu (or arrange that he is properly
  taught) about the Paa.timokkha Rule and the other principles that all
  bhikkhus should follow and observe.
For the first five years a bhikkhu is called navaka ('new one') and he
  must live 'dependent' (nissaya) on a senior bhikkhu — either his
  preceptor or teacher (aacariya) — training in the ways of a bhikkhu.
  The preceptor and the new monk should be kind and helpful to each
  other, in almost a father-and-son relationship. A new bhikkhu who no
  longer lives under his preceptor must take another senior bhikkhu as
  his teacher and depend on him instead.
For the next five years after his navaka period, the bhikkhu is called
  majjhima, ('one in the middle') and he is allowed to live by himself
  if he is accomplished in certain qualities.
When a bhikkhu has completed ten Rains he is called Thera, which can
  be translated as 'an elder who is worthy of respect.' If he is also
  accomplished in certain extra qualities, he is allowed to give
  ordination as preceptor, to be a teacher, and have young monks live in
  dependence on him.
-The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople

Note: Requirement of being male is not always necessary and is dependent on the specific monastery in which the ordination takes place.
For a more in-depth answer, see the chapter on Ordination in the Buddhist Monastic Code by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Here's a chart of the procedure in some western monasteries (in Asian monasteries the ordination can be immediate):

Some references:

Ordination at Santi Forest Monastery
General Information for Potential Anagarikas in UK Monasteries

Thanks, just a point: " He must never have committed any grievous crimes...He should also be of good reputation", how about Angulimala?

The first two paragraphs of the Ordination chapter of Thanissaro's book (mentioned above) might answer the question.

@konrad01 The rule of not ordaining anyone who has committed grievous crimes was imposed by the Buddha after ordaining Angulimala.

The first reference in Unrul3r's answer doesn't seem to mention age, but the second one does:

GENERAL INFORMATION FOR POTENTIAL ANAGARIKAS
AGE
Age twenty to forty-five is the usual age range.
We have found that in general the difficulties of adjusting to monastic life increase with age. For this reason
  people who seem most suited to this lifestyle tend to fall between the ages of twenty to forty-five. However, if a
  person outside this age range is able to adapt then exceptions can be made.

There's a similar limit defined at Plum Village:

Becoming a Monastic
All applicants must be under 50 years of age. No academic degree is required. If you are under 18, you must have permission from your parents. Those who have serious or terminal illnesses or severe disabilities can not be accepted as monastics.

There's a discussion on that topic on DhammaWheel -- here are some quotes I selected (talking only about maximum age, not minimum age):

Age limit for entering monastic life?

No maximum age. In North Hollywood, California a few years back there was an ex-Protestant minister who ordained at the age of 92 or 95, lived for a few years until his death at that monastery. Sri Lankan monks were at his bedside chanting while he passed.
:bow:
Currently they have another older monk who ordained at the age of about 85.
My understanding is that in many asian monasteries, females have to be under 50 years of age with very limited places.
[But also at Santi Monastery, in New South Wales]:
Bhante Sujato (abbot) is highly supportive of full Bhikkuni ordination. ...
  Ordination is open to anyone regardless of their age, gender, background etc.
I noticed a certain reluctance from some Western Monasteries to ordain older people.

One more (all one user from the same thread):

I'm in Canada and I spoke to the Abbot of Birken Forest Monastery in Kamloops: Ajahn Sona, Thai Forest Tradtion. He informed me that as this monastery, the "cut-off age is 45." He was quick to add that it 'has to do with demographics." He didn't elablorate and I didn't puruse it, but I surmise it has to do with Dana. There's not a lot of lay support yet in Canada to support many monks, so perhaps he's concerned to see that support go to candidates with . . . more potential? I don't know. Anyway he suggested that if I wanted to go forth I should go to IMF in Thailand.
I once heard Ajahn Jayasaro speaking to a friend of mine who is perhaps 63 ish, and asking him if he hadn't thought of ordaining. My friend said that he thought we was too old. The Ajahn smiled and said: "you seem reasonably healthy..," and he more or less encouraged him to consider it, and put forth both Thailand and Sri Lanka as possibilities.
One monastic in the UK I was communicating with by email echoed that 45 is the age in the West.

So, there is a cut-off age in at least one Canadian monastery. That seems to be a broader limitation across much or all of the West. There is no cut-off age in Thailand or Sri Lanka.
The question I wonder at is: ok, so ordination at 53 (my age) in parts of Asia is a possibility--it's not excluded by rules or convention. But how "realistic" is it setting forth at my age?
Actually I am a man; I mentioned Aya Khema only because that is one example I know of where a person my age ordained in Sri Lanka. I know it is possible, that I would be accepted in SE Asia. For me it is mostly a question of the practicality of ordaining late in life. Aya Khema returned to the west before long. It seems like most of the Bhikkus from the West either disrobe or at least return to the West eventually. I wonder that so few seem to stay, and it makes me wonder if the life there is very harsh, which begs the question: perhaps 53 is pushing it a bit.
I'm studying Singhala now, to try to increase the odds that I can integrate.

In summary there are formal (predefined) cut-off ages in many or most Western monasteries (although not all) -- and maybe less so in the East.
"West versus East" is too rough a generalisation, though -- here's something from Korea for example, news from 2016:

Jogye Order of Buddhism to raise maximum age for ordination
As early as next year, the Jogye Order of Buddhism will be making it possible for older people to join the monastic life. Currently, the maximum age for ordination is 50 years old.

“We’re going to set up a special post-retirement monastic ordination system so that people who dream of living a life of religious discipline after retiring can join Buddhism,”

said Ja-seung, President of the Jogye Order. Ja-seung made the comments during a New Year’s press conference held on Jan. 13 at the South Korean Buddhist History and Culture Museum, located in the Jongno District of Seoul.

“The rules of the order state that ordination can only take place until the age of 50. But people are living longer, and the social conditions have changed,” Ja-seung said. “We’re going to solicit people’s opinions with the goal of changing the rules during the meeting of the central committee in November of this year so that people who are well-suited for religious practice can be given new choices and opportunities.”

The maximum age for “going forth” - as becoming a monk or nun is called in Buddhism - was lowered from 60 to 50 in 1996, and then down to 40 in 2002, before being raised once again to 50 in 2006.


text:
Did Buddhists ever actively participate in a major violent conflict?
The great "religions of peace" like Christianity and Islam had some quite turbulent events that seem in major conflict with their primary commandments, but still in the name of faith - even "within" (like bloody wars between catholics and protestants).
Buddhism shuns all violence, but I'm curious how true to this philosophy did the believers remained through ages. Was there ever any major conflict involving violent confrontation, in which Buddhists would fight (violently, not passively) in defense of their religion? Are there any "shameful moments of Buddhism" like there are so many in other major religions?

It's not a major violent conflict like a war or something, but Buddhist monks have been involved in violent anti-muslim protests in Myanmar and in Sri Lanka in the last few years. An organization called Bodu Bala Sena, which is Sinhalese for 'Buddhist Power Force', has been stirring up and supporting these protests. The organisation was founded by two Buddhist monks with the goal to:

support militancy against minorities to preserve the dominance of the Buddhist majority
  (source The Economist)

However, since they left their monastery it is questionable if the founders can still be seen as Buddhist monks.
More info also in this recent Time newsarticle.

That article about Bodu Bala Sena attacking muslims is so shamefully biased and twisted. It all started when the muslims in the area blatantly attacked a monk who was just going in a van to attend an alms giving. A mob of muslims were blocking the road and the driver of the van honked to signal them to make way. They got riled by that and attacked the driver and the monk.
http://www.asianmirror.lk/news/item/1532-muslims-have-a-different-law-in-aluthgama-police-officers-live-in-mosque-bbs/1532-muslims-have-a-different-law-in-aluthgama-police-officers-live-in-mosque-bbs

@SankhaKulathantille Since I've never been in Myanmar or Sri Lanka so I can't verify the BBS article I posted, but in the link you've posted the BBS monk says "They (the muslims) want us to attack them and create a huge drama over that.". I find that very hard to believe.

That's not so hard to believe if you knew what's going on here. There are so many foreign funded groups within Sri Lanka who are trying to create religious and ethnic unrest. The objective is to make it look like the minorities are being discriminated specially when the US and some western countries are desperately trying to bring a human rights resolution against Sri Lanka. The country is developing at a fast pace after the war and some countries just can't stand it. They want to destabilize the country and create something like an Arab spring here. Look at what's happening to Thailand.

Yes, the BBS is founded by 2 monks. But they are more of a nationalistic movement than a Buddhist movement. They get involved in conflicts whenever the law and order fail to protect the human rights of Buddhists. But they do not represent the Sangha or the Buddhist community in Sri Lanka

I find this article about protests in Myanmar rather thought-provoking...

@Rabbit I find the article you link to rather worrying. It basically says that 'all muslims are bad'. I think it is incorrect to generalize people in such a way. This way of thinking has led to massacres and ethnic cleansings. There may be a small minority of extremist muslims, but you can't hold that against all muslims.

Suggested reading: Buddhist Warfare - Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergenmeyer. A view of the contents:

Making Merit through warfare according to the Arya-Bodhisaattva-upayavisaya-nirdesa-sutra
Sacralized Warfare: The Fifth Dalai Lama and the discourse on religious violence.
Soldier-zen in wartime Japan
Buddhists in China during the Korean War
Onward Buddhist Soldiers: Preaching to the Sri Lankan Army
Militarizing Buddhism: Violence in Southern Thailand

Was any of these on religious background? E.g. Korean war was definitely a part of the Cold War, no religious background at all.

The Sri Lankan army did not go to war in the name of Buddhism or against another religion. They waged war against terrorists to protect the sovereignty of the country.

@Sankha Kulathantille As Buddhists they should let go of attachments to their country, shouldn't they?

Yes, but they went to war as patriots. Not as Buddhists. Or not because they wanted to convert people to Buddhism.

Zen at War describes the role of Zen in the Japanese militarism in the 19th and the 20th century. A quote from Harada Daiun Sogaku (after Wikipedia):

[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way].


text:
Has anyone claimed to have reborn in Pure Land, and later returned to earth to help other beings?
It is said that a person can choose to return to samsara to help others after being reborn in Pure Land. But has anyone claimed to be that particular kind of person? I am not talking about those who claimed to have visited Pure Land in meditation or dreams. But those who was a human, rebirthed in a Pure Land, instructed by Buddhas and bodhisattvas in that Pure Land, then chose to rebirth back as human on earth to help other beings.

@AndreiVolkov "...whoever claimed... Maitreya... from the Pure Lands" is a wrong knowledge. Maitreya at present never resides in any Pureland, he dwells and teaches in the Inner Garden of Tusita, he is a Great Bodhisattva, not yet a Buddha. Tusita is not any Pureland, but the abode of higher Celestial Beings.

You are right Bhumishu, Tusita is in kamadhatu, and Pure Lands are rupadhatu. I deleted my comment. Thank you.

Usually the Bodhisattvas who vows to be born back to Earth to guild others will do so with the means appropriate to the culture, time and age.  In this age of Dharma descend, they would not display enlightenment or supernatural powers, but instead would display mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha and recitation of His name.  They would show signs that they obtain rebirth to Pureland.  And they will never reveal their true identity.  Master Chin King often said if the Buddha or Bodhisattva identity is revealed they would immediately depart from this world.
Namo Amita Buddha.

Who is Chin King? Do u mean "King" "Kung" (空)? If so I remind u to be careful of his teachings! Why don't u study the Pureland Sutras (淨土三經 in Classical Chinese works of Kumarajiva) yourself, they are rather in plain language, or study some 印光大師 writings/letters, these could protect u from being misled by any "world famous Dharma teachers).

I guess technically the Dalai Lama be one such person. He is reputedly the manifestations of the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteśvara. Avalokiteśvara is the the earthly manifestation of Amitabha who has the Pureland of sukhavati. Amitabha is himself the primary focus of Pure Land Buddhism. I'm not sure if the Dalai Lama would stand up in from of an audience and make that claim but he is an emanation of a bodhisattva who is associated with a pure land.

Could you please give a credible reference saying that 'Avalokiteśvara is the the earthly manifestation of Amitabha'?

One story says that Chenrezig (Avalokiteśvara) was born from the eye of the Amitabha.

@Rabbit it says it in the encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/45363/Avalokiteshvara I've not found the orginal scripture ref yet though to be fair

Ok, I think I get it. The story tells the origin of the Chenrezig. Amitabha was in his Pure Lands and 'one day (he) conceived that in order to help beings a deity in the form of a young man should be manifested. His right eye then emitted a beam of white light that took the form of Chenrezig. (...) Having been born from the eye of Amitabha, the young man miraculously appeared on a lotus.' So technically one can say that Amitabha created some 'earthly manifestation'. But essentially, they both represent different aspects.

@Rabbit hahaha you definitely have got a better grip then me. It's just what I was taught at the Triratna centre I attend. This is a book which goes through it from our perspective http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Meeting_the_Buddhas.html?id=pNZUPwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y I always took it to mean that they were the same but maybe not

Avalokiteshvara is NOT the manifestation/emanation of Amitabha. Avalokiteshvara is the next Buddha of Uttermost Happiness after Amitabha entered Nirvana. Avalokiteshvara was an "ancient" Buddha in eons of Kalpas before this one. He and many Bodhisattvas such as Manjusri in this Kalpa take the forms of Bodhisattva or sometimes celestial beings.

Anyone claimed to be reborn from Pureland, or a reincarnation of a Buddha/Bodhisattva is definitely a fraud. Anyone (public personnel) being glorified by others/public without refuting such statement but admitting via non-denying is a double-crossed fraud. The Great 印光法師 (1862-1940) was "known" by many the reincarnation of Mahāsthāmaprāpta, the next Great Bodhisattva of Sukhavati, he refuted such saying in writing. Yet many accomplished practitioners knew indeed he was.

I am not aware of anybody who has chosen to reenter samsara after having died in a previous life and being reborn in Sukhavati. Perhaps it is a rare event that has not happened yet since the death of Sakyamuni. Or perhaps it simply means that the appearance of buddhas from the Pureland is not a matter of incarnation, but a matter of influence. Personally, I am more interested in the bodhisattva that can reach into samsara to save sentient beings while remaining in sukhavati.


text:
Is Bhikkhu allowed to keep his food in refrigerator for next day or for long period?
From Theravada view;
Recently, I saw the video and I am not sure whether a monk can store food in a refrigerator; From my understanding, a monk cannot store food for next day. I believe this should be in the list of 227 rules but I cannot confirm.
Another small question: Is this common sight to see a refrigerator in a monk's room in Theravada monastery? Keeping it like a personal one.

Is Bhikkhu allowed to keep his food in refrigerator for next day or for long period?
Not proper food, only certain types of edibles:

The Four Sorts of Edibles
Any nutriment that a bhikkhu puts into his mouth is classified in four
groups, which specify the time limits during which he can consume or
store them:
(i) Food — Limited from Dawn to Noon (Yaavakaalika)
(ii) Fruit juices — Limited to One Day (Yaamakaalika)
(iii) Medicinal-tonics — Limited to Seven Days (Sattaahakaalika)
(iv) Other Medicines — For All One's Life (Yaavajiivika)
-The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople

This is also what I've seen in some western monasteries.

Is this common sight to see a refrigerator in a monk's room in Theravada monastery?
The few times I've been in a monk's private room, I never saw one. But in the same housing (under the same roof), it's common.