text:
The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth
Why didn't the Buddha, who knew there were 31 realms of existence, not talk about the roundness of the earth and planets?

Where did the Buddha say that the earth is flat?

At least list down the so called Buddhist universal truths that are proven false by the today scientific discovery.

Next time try to make your question only one question and like Sankha said quote the thing that you read that brings such a question.

i have corrected fixed the question.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2010/10/07/130408706/the-buddha-counts

The basic project of Buddhism is solving the problem of suffering (or sometimes some other variation of the fundamental problem), usually through a realization about who we really are.
In addition to that, the Buddha didn't bother to challenge many of the other ideas of his day regarding the realms, or karma. (He did take on caste, the economic system, to some degree the inequalities of men and women) He didn't challenge the world's thoughts on a lot of other issues, like medicine, astronomy, geography and so on.
The sutras were written 100s of years later, and accumulated all sorts of unrelated material. By 700 AD, when Vajrayana was well established, the Buddhist canon included books on medicine, astrology and more.
There are many varieties of Buddhism, the secular version dispenses with the cosmologies as instructive myths and the core project of Buddhism remains.
On the other hand, traditional Buddhism still holds the realms to be literally true, necessary for the Buddhist project and proponents like to call doubters "scientist", "materialist" or dismissive of "faith".
If the basic project is to stop the cycle of rebirth and enter a sort of heaven (nirvana), then the realms are essential to Buddhism, without them the basic goal becomes incoherent. If the basic project to end suffering, that is a goal that can imaginably be achieved in this lifetime and it's validity is unaffected by what may happen after we die.

The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth?
Perhaps because it had nothing to do with being free from suffering.I think the only reason the Buddha mentioned the 31 planes of existence was to help us understand more about samsara and that there are mind states that correlates with these 31 planes of existence.
How come? if he didn't know about the basic fact that all kids now know, instead he said it was flat.
He may not have been referring to the physical earth but the metaphysical or spiritual universe.And i can't find any reference of him saying the earth is flat.can you?
Doesn't it mean that what is said in the buddhist text is unreliable?
That depends on each person.If the person has developed the jhanas and the ability to travel to other realms then the text is reliable to him.If the person has faith in the Buddha the text is reliable for him,for people who completely ignore any metaphysical aspect and practice insight meditation in the here and now,the text is reliable for them.For people who need to see scientific proof for everything then the text is unreliable for them.The Dhamma invites you to practice and see for yourself.No one is forcing you to believe.You decide what's best for yourself.
On the other hand he did mention about 31 realm of existence which is more difficult to comprehend and cannot be proved.
Yes he had to mention the 31 planes of existence because it was related to his teaching of suffering and the cessation of suffering.He didn't mention the earth is round,the chemical composition of the sun,how to build a space ship,how many rings there are in jupiter,what my cats name is because it was irrelevant.
The 31 planes of existence is only difficult to comprehend if you do not see cause and effect.Everyday our mind states changes.One minute we are happy (in the deva realm) the next we are angry (hell realms).Really you don't even have to believe in a place this in itself is enough.
That said some of the Buddhist Universe truth are proven false by the today scientific discovery already.
Fortunately all Buddhists only have to worry about freeing themselves from suffering.

The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth
The Buddha always talked about spherical shapes throughout the suttas.
Spherical shapes when referring to other worlds and also realms.
You may also be confused when it is talked about the eight cardinal directions, confusing it for a flat plane. Instead the saying "anything in the eight cardinal directions" refers to the entire unvierse outside of yourself.
Also, according to this blog entry he describes the earth very perfectly including its radius.
Also, in the Surangama sutra or some other sutra Buddha describes the roundness of planets and "sun-systems." I can look for the exact source but try googling it and comment back first.

You may find Mr Piya Tans commentaries about the Aggañña Sutta and the Satta Suriya sutta to give some examples where the Buddha used cosmology . As to why he declared some knowledge and not others read the Simsapa Sutta.

According to my knowledge, there are six realms if we are talking about the Living Buddha.
He mentioned it during his teachings on Bhavachakra, known as wheel of life.
These realms are taught based on the lives of all sentient beings in earth.


text:
As a Buddhist lay-follower is there a need and good form to do good deeds?
As I've started to consider myself a lay-Buddhist for at least five years now, I've had an inclination to do good. But I've found it difficult to give it proper form.
I've found that politics are not the way for me, to much based on ego's and manipulation. But even doing just volunteer work or a food bank or help for refugees I've felt part of political machinations and power games.
Maybe this question is to much about opinion, but I was wondering:

Is there a need to good deeds as a lay-Buddhist?
What is are proper way of doing so, avoiding just giving money, or becoming to political?

Yes, good deeds are very useful to us! Read the Cula Kamma Vibhanga Sutta and the Maha Kamma Vibhanga sutta to get an idea of how good and bad Karma can affect our lives drastically.
You can do good deeds on your own without depending on political mechanisms. But if you have to get involved, focus on the good aspect to it, instead of the political side.

buddha mentioned 3 ways of doing good deeds. thru  1) action, 2) speech, 3) mind
action:  Sila (precepts, charity , etch)
Speech:  kinda words,
Mind: meditation, removing defilement, kindness projection..  etc

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What do we do when we've broken a precept?
How should we proceed in our practice when we have broken some of the five precepts? I am anguished over this unwholesome behavior and the negative karma I created. Ajahn Brahm talks about self-forgiveness and the Buddha in the Sankha Sutta (the Conch Trumpet Sutta) talks about waking up from unwholesome behavior by refraining from such actions in the future. And of course, there is the story of Angulimala, so there are some examples in the teachings of people waking from patterns of negative karma-making. I suppose the only way to proceed is to maintain the precepts, deepen my practice and strive to create wholesome karma?

You might find some useful info in books by Noah Levine.

Don't regret or repent! That is bad Karma. What you need to practice is Samma Vayama(The right effort) of the noble eightfold path.
The effort
(1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states;
(2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;
(3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen;
(4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.
Take the triple refuge and the five precepts every morning to remind yourself. Then at night, before going to sleep, reflect on the day's activities and see if you broke any precepts or if you can improve with Samma Vayama and try to do better next day.

Why is regretting/repenting bad karma??

It's a form of aversion

When you start off you can keep contemplating on the virtues and adhere to them. If any is broken make a strong determination not to break it again. As you progress look at the sensation each volition creates. If then sensation is gross then the action that follows will also be a gross action (breaking a virtue) hence should be avoided. Repenting is not productive. At higher stages you will notice that repenting also causes gross sensations, but until then keep in mind that repenting aggravates the Karma.

I am unfamiliar with the idea that repenting aggravates are karma. Is the point then to just move on, recommiting to the Five Precepts and applying our energy there instead?

'our karma,' I mean...

Sit with your emotions of regret and cry and truly feel the pain you caused others
Decide to fuel it into following the Noble Truths to live a balanced life and work towards the super awesome goals of Buddhism which are far beyond anything that any drug or thing or person can ever give you!
Make a small offering (a small bowl of rice will do, throw it in your garden the next morning) to your family ancestors, ghosts and the other beings and ask them for their help every night.
Forgive yourself when you have fully taken this decision to change and made this sacrifice
List the different things you want to change
Describe how each of these things are triggered and decide to avoid these triggers! (a certain social circle may not be seeing you in a while!)
Find a replacement habit for each of the things you want to change (for example, if you feel relaxed by drinking, listen to music instead and do deep breathing... it'll give you a similar feeling and will lead you towards even higher attainments--while enhancing your brain and body)
Keep monitoring your avoiding these triggers. Each day you can avoid these triggers (that are related to certain unbeneficial behaviors) is a day closer to permanent change! Studies show that if you can maintain a habit for 21 consecutive days, you basically have changed the way your brain works!

Good luck!

You put your concern into an abstract concept, which is a hindrance.
When you know, that you did something unhealthy/unwise etc. "make it good" where you did bad. I.e. if you'd hurt someone, tell them you know and how you feel about it now, no matter how their reaction might be.
You can only solve problems on their very level but never in abstract religious-conceptual-whatever way (by putting a concrete situation into a philosophical or religious structure.

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


text:
Lay meditation in Korean Zen
Have there been reform movements in 20th century Korean Buddhism that put more emphasis on meditation practice than traditional Korean Buddhism did, and that, in particular, also encouraged meditation by lay people? Put differently, I wonder whether Korean Buddhism has had a reform movement similar to, say, the reform movement of Mahasi Saydaw in Burma (that, in turn, was important to the development of Vipassana meditation as practiced by many in the US).

According to the answer to a related question, there was no significant reform movement in Korean Seon:

So there may be others who revitalized Seon, but in many ways the traditional practices and texts of Seon remained unchanged over a long time. Of all 3 Seon, Zen and Chan, the Korean practice seems the most like a mono culture with a tendency to remaining close to traditions.

Korean Zen in the US, for example at the Providence Zen Center, emphasizes meditation by lay people as a central practice. But according to Robert Buswell's book "The Zen Monastic Experience: Buddhist Practice in Contemporary Korea" even in monasteries only a small number of monks practice meditation. I wonder whether the Korean Zen that has come to the West is based on a Korean reform movement, or whether it just developed in the West, but not in Korea. For Vipassana, and also Japanese Zen, the origins of the Western version seem to be reform movements in Asia.

Take a look at the biography of the founder of the Providence Zen Center: http://www.kwanumzen.org/author/zen-master-seung-sahn/ Even though he is Korean, he was raised in a Christian family and studied Western philosophy before his first encounter with Buddhism. I don't think he is a typical representative of Korean Seon.


text:
What does Buddhism say about intentionally killing dangerous insects and beings?
Recently I got into a long debate with some people on Reddit about killing pestilent, poisonous insects. Feel free to read it. There are some interesting scientific findings.
Whatever the word is for people who go over-board with their compassion/ahimsa trip... I think they are doing that, considering it was a poisonous spider (about to give birth to 100 more) I dispatched.
So what does Buddhism say about intentionally killing dangerous (poisonous) and/or pestilent insects?
Specifically dangerous insects in one's personal and community environment.
Surely, the suttas, aimed towards forest-dwellers, must have some guidelines on harmful insects and animals.

Honestly, the chosen answer for that question is rumination on the accidental killing and NOT an answer to that question nor my question. Bad answer IMO, but I guess questioner chose it as satsifying his question.

Venerable Yuttadhammo's reply here answers this question

Yeah similar meaning as andreis answer. Basically: not creating poisons, making dure conducive to better 3 trainings.

Andrei's was the answer you chose: i.e. you quoted it on Reddit, to justify your argument that your killing was Right Action, while comparing yourself to "bodhisattvas exercising skillful means".

Haha yep. There is more overall good in the universe than bad. There are a few angry people on Redit and SE though. ;)

Surely, the suttas, aimed towards forest-dwellers, must have some guidelines on harmful insects and animals

Yes: there is a sutta in which the Buddha tells forest-dwelling monks to practice a mind of good-will towards other beings -- see Ahina Sutta: By a Snake.
Perhaps if you were practising good-will you might be careful not to stand on or disturb them.

This is not justifiable in terms of the precepts. Also any action like killing will be rooted in hatred, hence is counter-productive to achieve the Buddhist goal of Nirvana or peace for one self. Also you have to look at the possible effect on subject of the action. Will the subject be happy about it.

Not all killing is rooted in hatred.
Some killing is rooted in justice and compassion for the overall community.
One loose psychopath can massacre hundreds. It makes one question if the extreme of compassion... is just another imbalanced extreme.

An example or two might be helpful, including details why it is necessary to kill them as opposed to other control methods. I think killing such creatures just becomes the easiest method.

Sure, read the Reddit link and my arguments and the majority who stubbornly disagreed with me as to why I chose to kill the pregnant black widow laying in my community garden area. In any example, any control method is preferable to killing, especially if the insect is not poisonous.

But what was the danger to you? Most people, including children if they are taught, know to watch out for spiders and snakes and such. That is why clothing and gloves were invented.

Cant believe i have to explain this.. The danger to me: her hundreds of children (all having a deadly bite) hiding near my plants which i often come to stand barefoot on. Also my many weight lifting tools are there. I dont have paranormal powers like a bodhisattva to go sense them and tell them to cause no harm.

@Ahmed Dvesha is one of the three poisons. A better translation than "hatred" might be "aversion".

How about aversion to ignorance? Aversion to coarse hatred and aversion to others being harmed (karuna)? An aversion to non-virtue is necessary to develop good habits.
You might be right on the other hand and that even lightest of aversions and attractions are eliminated but I doubt that it is important except in the highest stages of jhana.

@Ahmed If the "opposite wholesome quality" to 'aversion' is 'compassion' (i.e. non-aggression, loving-kindness), then perhaps that would the better attitude to have towards beings who you might perceive as ignorant. In this comment Andrei argued that aversion is a type of Taṇhā, and is therefore too a root cause of dukkha.

@Ahmed You don't have to kill. You can put it in a jar, take it far away to the woods, and leave it. There are other solutions besides killing. Killing as a deterrent (say, publicly killing an assassin to abstain others from killing), or in self-defense, might be harder to answer. Maybe in this lifetime we won't let enlightenment paralyze us from pragmatic action. What if someone is at war with us? We will act with violence. But that's not the case of the Dalai Lama tho. Lets start by being conscious of the harm we'll do. Shaolin Kung Fu is highly influenced by Buddhism, but is not it Buddhism


text:
Is there a correlation between sukha and passadha?
Is there a correlation between sukha (the 4th component of the jhanangas) and passadha (the 5th component of the sambojjhanga)?

When Piti arises and you stay equanimously watching the arising and passing knowing its impermanence (with no attachment or craving to this feeling) then Piti will fade away and Passadhi will arise. When Passadhi initially arises you may think your meditation is regressing as you loose Piti and also board after a few hours of Passadhi.
Piti is a stage which is conducive to tame Sankara resulting from craving.
Passadhi is a stage which is conducive to tame Sankara from Ignorance or Sanna.

Do you really mean Sanna? Not Dosa?

Sukha isn't one of the 7 Bojjhangas, although Piti (rapture) is the fourth of them so I think that's what you meant. Yes, there is a connection. When Piti is developed correctly it will lead to Passadha (which simply means tranquility or peace.) For example, in the section on the Bojjhangas in the Anapanasati Sutta it says:

"[4] In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh
  arises. When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose
  persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor for awakening becomes
  aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its
  development.
"[5] For one enraptured at heart, the body grows calm and the mind
  grows calm. When the body & mind of a monk enraptured at heart grow
  calm, then serenity as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He
  develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its
  development.
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

It's not just a strong correlation, it's the direct cause.
http://lucid24.org/sn/sn46/sn46-003/toc-addon/index.html
It's not just that sutta, SN 46.3.
Doing a search for passaddha-kāyo sukhaṃ returns (60 hits).
At least 60 sutta references to that same 7sb awakening factor sequence.
passaddha-kāyo sukhaṃ: (with) pacified-body, [physical] pleasure (results)

There is no correlation between sukha (the 4th component of the jhanangas) and passadha (the 5th component of the sambojjhanga) because there is no correlation between passadha and jhana.
The rapture of sambojjhanga is not the rapture of jhana. This is quite obvious because the rapture of sambojjhanga arises before the concentration of sambojjhanga, as follows:

For one whose mind is uplifted by rapture the body becomes tranquil and the mind becomes tranquil.... For one whose body is tranquil and who is happy the mind becomes concentrated.
SN 46.3

The rapture of sambojjhanga is merely the rapture that occurs when the 1st and particularly the 2nd  sambojjhanga are being practised successfully.
This type of rapture is similar to the rapture below that occurs due to faith in the teachings about ending suffering, which is not jhana:

"Tranquillity, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does
not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition
for tranquillity? 'Rapture' should be the reply.
"Rapture, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not
lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
rapture? 'Joy' should be the reply.
"Joy, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack
a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for joy?
'Faith' should be the reply.
"Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not
lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
SN 12.23

Do your homework and look at what passaddhi (pacification/relaxation) is doing in SN 36.11, DN 2, among dozens of other suttas. It's all over the place and completely intertwined with the 4 jhanas. By your half baked logic, sati-sambojjhanga, upekkha-sambojjhanga, are also "therefore not part of 4 jhanas because they are different awakening factors that aren't equivalent to samadhi-sambojjhanga." Then why is sati and upekkha explicitly included in 3rd and 4th jhana?

When a certain word is used in different contexts, does not mean it has the same meaning. For example, in SN 36.11, passaddhā of speech, vitakka and vicara occurs before passaddhā of rapture. Therefore, that rapture in sambojjhanga could occur before passaddhā in sambojjhanga is illogical.

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


text:
Should one give to beggars?
I'm very fortunate to live in an affluent part of the world. Even so, it is a common site to see people begging for money in the street. In our town there are posters up asking people not to give to beggars as it just encourages people to beg more. However habitually walking past people begging does not feel like the compassionate thing to do.
Is it possible to bring Buddhist ethics and philosophy to bear on this? Should one give to beggars in this circumstance? It would be good if answers could include textual references to illustrate the point however all answers gratefully received.

Have you considered noting the encounter mentally, and then giving money to a homeless charity? They are far better placed than you to assess need and get the money where it needs to be, and will get far more value for your money than you do (via arrangements with companies for discount food etc). Compassion doesn't have to be blind guesswork, you can always apply intelligence to compassion.

I think @JonStory's answer is the best. Giving to beggars means being partly responsible for what they do with it. You need to ensure that you're being wise with the money you're giving. And hence, an organization that utilizes it best.

I have worked with homeless persons through non-profit agencies for over twenty years, therefore my answer is based on much experience. You are wise to seek the compassionate response. There is tremendous judgement about people who beg: assumptions are made that they are addicts, or unwilling to work (prefer to beg), or uninformed about available social services, or simple-minded, or mentally ill, or lazy, or falling through the cracks, or __________ (fill in the blank with your thoughts about them).
You know what? Any or all of these things might be true of the next beggar you see. Or none of them might be true. Which is why it is wise to just rest in your compassion. The beggar you see is a human being first. Say hello. Smile. Give that person your full respect and do not assume for a minute that you know what is best for them. Do not assume you can gauge their capacity. Do not assume that you know anything About their past or present, or that you can predict their behavior (such as assuming they will buy liquor if you give them money).
Compassion validates human worth. Compassion listens. Compassion sees each beggar as an individual human being who is a very important person.
I believe that when you embrace your compassion, you will see the person. The person. And when you see the person, and have some conversation (or just simple eye contact and a nod), that your compassion will direct your actions. When you see the person, and listen, and pay attention to them, you will be positioned to help should you choose to do so. Perhaps Money. Perhaps bus fare. Perhaps food. Or perhaps a handshake and small-talk well-wishes.
There is no one-size-fits-all when we talk about people and their needs. It is wrong to put up a sign that points to a group of people as less-than, which is the essence of the  "don't give money to beggars" sign... It is giving the message "do not feed the animals". It is taking away their human dignity.

This is an excellent response to a complicated question. If I could add, however, the first precept is "I will refrain from harming the life of others." If one cannot engage the beggar to the extent suggested by @LynnSuzanne, perhaps not giving just money might be appropriate. Many (not all) begging in our USA society use the proceeds to feed harmful addictions, so you might be harming them without understanding it. So, I believe, in those circumstances, giving to organizations which help lead such out of these addictions might be a better path in really helping them.

In your 30 years of compassion for beggars, (1) how many did you help to liberate themselves from the suffering of “learned helplessness”? How many did you help to stay stuck in “learned helplessness” by rewarding their āsava?
It is common for the ruling class to “virtue signal” false “compassion” towards the broken whilst simultaneously striving to maintain their brokenness.
I call these narcissists “camouflaged predators”.
The Buddha was at war with them.
The Buddha had contempt for the caste system.

Dakkhina Vibhanga Sutta is the one you want to have a look at.

Ananda, there are these fourteen individual gifts (cuddasa
  pāṭipuggalikā dakkhi). What are the fourteen?

One gives a gift to the Tathagata, the arhat [worthy one], fully self-awakened one—this is the first individual gift
One gives a gift to a pratyeka Buddha—this is the second individual gift
One gives a gift to an arhat disciple of the Tathagata—this is the third individual gift
One gives a gift to one on the way to realize the fruition of arhathood [an arhat-to-be]—this is the fourth individual gift
One gives a gift to a non-returner—this is the fifth individual gift
One gives a gift to one on the way to realize the fruition of non-return [a non-returner-to-be]—this is the sixth individual gift
One gives a gift to a once-returner—this is the seventh individual gift.
One gives a gift to one on the way to realize the fruition of once-return [a once-returner-to-be]— this is the eighth individual
  gift
One gives a gift to a streamwinner—this is the ninth individual gift
One gives a gift to one on the way to realize the fruition of streamwinning [a streamwinner-to-be] —this is the tenth individual
  gift
One gives a gift to one outside (the path) who is free from sensual pleasures—this is the eleventh
  individual gift.
One gives a gift to a virtuous worldling—this is the twelfth individual gift
One gives a gift to an immoral worldling —this is the thirteenth individual gift
One gives a gift to an animal—this is the fourteenth individual gift

In this regards, Ananda, having made a gift to an animal, one may
  expect a hundredfold gift. Having made a gift to an immoral
  worldling, one may expect a thousandfold gift. Having made a gift to a
  virtuous worldling, one may expect a hundred-thousandfold gift. Having
  made a gift to one outside (the path) who is free from sensual
  pleasures, one may expect a hundred-thousand times a
  hundred-thousandfold gift. Having made a gift to on the way to realize
  the fruition of streamwinning [a streamwinner-to-be], one may expect
  boundless, immeasurable gift. What more to speak of a streamwinner?
  What more to speak of one on the way to realize the fruition of
  once-return [a once-returner-to-be]? What more to speak of a
  once-returner? What more to speak of one on the way to realize the
  fruition of once-return [a non-returner-to-be]? What more to speak of
  a non-returner? What more to speak of one on the way to realize the
  fruition of arhathood [an arhat-to-be]? What more to speak of an arhat
  disciple of the Tathagata? What more to speak of a pratyeka Buddha?
  What more to speak of the Tathagata, fully self-awakened arhat, ripen
  in an incalculable way?

#12 and #13 are the ones relevant to your question. So whether it is encouraged by the community or not, you will get merits(thousandfold/hundred thousandfold) if you give to beggars.
ps: n-fold could mean a gift 'n' times bigger or a similar gift for 'n' number of lives.

What a great answer. I've run into many self-righteous people who would avoid giving to a #12 for the risk he may actually be #13. My claim is that I can't judge the difference, literally, it's not my place to do so.

Yes, you can still make the giving very meritorious if you are a virtuous person, regardless of the standards of the receiver.

Today I was in a situation where I was walking downtown and gave a dollar to a beggar, but being downtown I was literally asked at almost every corner. Do I keep giving to my wallet is empty, I didn't but I made me think, certainly have more than them, I had it, but when is it or is it ok to say no?

@m2015 Your capacity for charity is something for you to calculate depending on your income and budget. Giving is always meritorious.

Of course you should give to the beggar... because the act of giving, isn't for the beggar, it's for you. The same goes for forgiveness, love and the removal of hate and judgment... it's not for them ( even though it impacts their life) it's for you, it's for your peace of mind, happiness and love!!
What we see in the world, it reflects our own minds and hearts. If you want to see more love in the world...then give to beggars and love all unconditionally, regardless of how they treat you!
Metta.

I don't deny that all human actions have at least some self-interest mixed in--there is no truly 100% altruistic act. However, to baldly state that "it's not for them, it's for you", insofar as this statement is faithful to Buddhism, to me reveals something seriously wrong with Buddhism: it destroys true compassion. Acting only to alleviate your own suffering, not theirs, is knavely and base. Being wholly self-focused (through the mechanism of giving to others) isn't, in my opinion, actually going to increase the love in the world..

You are obviously entitled to your opinion... and that is what makes this world so amazing! I wish you great success with your practice, my friend!

Actually, increasing the love in the world is not the goal of Buddhism. The goal is to attain enlightenment. With regards to that, the intention of the practice of giving is to reduce your greed. Also to practice love and compassion to counter hate and cruelty. When one attains enlightenment, he or she automatically increases love in the world by annihilating aversion. And that person can help others attain enlightenment as well. That is the only permanent solution. Giving things will never remove true suffering of others.

@ErikE is a selfish act that increases the happiness of both individuals involved actually a selfish act? Or is it just a more intelligent act that realises the situation is not zero sum? ;)

@iain I don't deny that one can have self-interest and other-interest commingled and be honorable in their pursuit—God gave us healthy desires that are good to fulfill. But if "giving to the beggar isn't for the beggar, it's for you" and you know this, then you are evil. Buddhism is fundamentally flawed because it sees the primary problem of life as pain and thus the solution is extinction of desire. The bit about increasing love is a lie because when all are fully enlightened no love will be needed—thus calling it love is a sop. True love desires the good of another at cost to oneself.

@ErikE In Buddhism, metta, or loving-kindness is the wish for happiness. This could be directed towards the self, or someone else. There is nothing about outcomes included in that. If you're worried about outcomes then that would be a question of intelligence, of right action. Loving kindness is related to right intention, compassion is related to right action. But you're arguing your definition, so to that. It makes me wonder a) why there has to be a cost to oneself, and b) how does one love oneself without entering a paradox?

@iain love can encompass times when the cost is low or none, however without cost it is unproven and thus possibly false. Love always operates out of truth (as seen through kindness), and love of oneself primarily consists of aligning to truth rather than to what feelings say. I may want to engage in something pleasurable but harmful to me, but knowing that it is harmful and I am valuable, love of myself then means giving up selfish desire (the cost) to achieve a greater purpose (in accord with the truth).

@ErikE Without a higher authority there is no need for proof. Without such authority there is no central "truth" to find, no doctrine to follow. There is also no need for cost/reparation/penance as there is no concept of sin and no one to pay. There is also no evil because there is no absolutism, no soul, no essence. Buddha Gotama did go through a period of severe asceticism but he rejected this as extreme, and advocated the middle way between pleasure and pain. Without a creator god as a starting point, the concept of love you outline does not make sense and is, hence, misapplied to Buddhism.

@iain is everything you said the truth? How do you know? On what foundation do you make those claims about there being no foundation?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

You should give because it is possible they are in a life-threatening situation so in giving you are potentially saving a life. If they are lying then God sees everything, you are covered!  But as previous poster mentioned, you are really giving for yourself.

Much as I commend your compassion, this is Buddhism Stack Exchange, "God" (uppercase G) is part of the Abrahamic tradition (usually Christian if you're going to call Him God), and there is no creator god(s) at all espoused as part of any Buddhist religion I know of. You may think of Buddhism as radical atheism, if that helps.

@iain would the statement of Katyne be more consistent if it were written as "If they are lying then their karma would even things out without you having to understand  the entirety of  everything. Therefore you need not know everything, just trust that your right action is enough for you to know". Is this the space between what K wrote and what you did ?

First of all, God bless your heart for even caring and contemplating on this.  There are several different reasons why people ask for money, and, therefore, there are several different reasons why you would be asked not to give them money.  On one hand, and as have some kindly suggested, you can resort to donating your money or service to a charity organization, just to make sure that whatever you are giving is channeled correctly.  On another hand, and if you can, you may ask the person about what is it that they need, and bring it to them, if you can.  I have friends that kindly approach the person and ask them why they need the money.  When it is for food, clothing or something they can afford buying for them, they buy it and bring it to them.  An act of kindness that brightens their day.

The Brahman Net Sutra says

Being Stingy
  “Buddha-Sons, one should not be stingy or incite others to be stingy, through any causes, conditions, methods, or karmas.
  “A Bodhisattva should give to those who come to him all that they need. If, out of malice or anger, he instead refuses to give to the
  poor even a coin, a needle, or a blade of grass, or refuses to say a
  verse or a stanza to those who request the Dharma, scolding and
  insulting them, it is a parājika sin.

But a good percentage of the beggars on the street have chemical dependency problems. So giving them money (sometimes they ask for the exact amount necessary to buy a bottle of malt liquor) violates this precept:

Selling Alcohol
  “Buddha-Sons, one should not sell alcohol or incite others to sell alcohol, through any causes, conditions, methods, or karmas. One
  should not sell any kind of alcohol because it can cause one to commit
  sins.
  “A Bodhisattva should bring clear wisdom out of sentient beings. If he instead causes them to muddle their minds, it is a parājika sin.

Enabling people to drink alcohol in the BNS is worse than consuming it yourself! (A major vs a minor precept)
Anyhow, it was a document written in China in the middle ages, when begging probably had a different dynamic, different circumstances (maybe they're peasants from the country side during time of drought!).  In many jurisdictions where I live, giving to beggars is illegal as is the begging and beggars that stand in the middle of the road get hit by cars from time to time.
A beggar who receives a $1 will spend it sometimes on food, sometimes on drugs. He will pay retail prices. A beggar that goes to a food bank, soup kitchen or the like will be eating food and no drugs. The food bank pays wholesale prices.
Your dollar is better donated to the soup kitchen.

There are some great answers here. I would also like to add the following comment by Buddha which emphasizes the importance of giving to anyone in need.

If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would
  not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness
  overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last
  mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were
  someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not know, as I
  know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without having given.
  The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds.
Iti 1.26

I cannot give any specific insight into the ethics of Buddhism , as I know little about it but I hope this answer will be of use to you nonetheless.
As a human being (Religion is, I believe, irrelevant in this case) I believe that it is not compassionate to pass a beggar (or anyone else asking for help) when I have the means to help them.
My own philosophy is that even if you suspect that the person begging doesn't really "need" to beg, let it be on their conscience, not yours; after all, who are we to judge others on face value?
If you're not entirely sure that giving money is a good idea (for example - if the person shows obvious signs of substance addiction and you believe the money is going towards their next fix, etc) then I would recommend instead offering (if you feel it's safe to do so) to buy them some food, or a cup of coffee, etc - you'd be surprised how much difference even this simple gesture can make to someone who's down on their luck.
I don't have any professional experience dealing with beggars, but I have talked to quite a few of them, and although I will admit that many aren't particularly savoury characters, a lot of them are just people like you and I who "fell through the cracks" in the system; it can happen pretty easily, even in places like the UK and Ireland (where I live).

I don't care if they use it on drugs/alcohol. As you stated that's on their conscience, not mine. And as you stated, it's an opportunity to show compassion, so if you have the means then you should. If you don't have the means, then don't.

@noobsmcgoobs well yes that's kind of my point,I don't really mind but someone else might hence "if you're not entirely sure" :)

I don't know about the UK.
In France, some people work (volunteer) for e.g. the Restaurants du Cœur; or in Canada, for the Daily Bread Food Bank.
There are some benefits to an organization like that:

It's communal (sociable, friendly) work
It's affordable (time not money)
As well as helping 'beggars', food banks also help e.g. children who are living in poverty
People who are there to distribute food are sometimes also able to offer other types of help

The quote given by Sankha is a great one and I love to read such things but the 1st training is very time-dependent and we have to learn to think critically and live our lives with good, highly informed, moderate principles of the Buddha considering relativities of our day.
Anyway... here is my time-and-place sensitive solution to the issue of seeing beggars everywhere:
We pay taxes that go to welfare so beggars... they should take opportunity of that welfare instead of just begging!
If anything IMO, you should explain the above to a beggar and see if they need help being taken to the social security office (so that they can apply). Also provide them with busfare to go back.
It really might be that easy to completely help a homeless person.
I have done an experiment and claimed homelessness before and received enough money to feed myself far more than amply and could actually live very comfortably so long as I stayed in a homeless center (or some other place) at night. It would be very easy to live as a monk on welfare... meditating in the jungle at day and finding shelter by night.
I have thought about it and experimented with it somewhat... I can verify that the system in the U.S. is very generous with food stamps program.
The homeless life that Buddha praised is much easier to do than people think!
[I'm glad I experimented with homeless survivalism because I always have that as a backup to compare to working 40 hours a week and straining to make house payments and bills.]
The reason homeless people suffer is entirely mental: they suffer from the mental dis-ease of scarcity and self-victimization.
I don't believe in donating money to help beggars though. It is quite naive to do so for a lot of reasons...

It's one thing to be a tourist claiming homelessness, another thing to be truly homeless. There are other mental diseases beyond self-victimization such as schizophrenia and depression that would make homelessness difficult to get out of and survive. There are people who grow up not having the education or socialization to thrive and end up homeless not as a choice.

Yes.. Thanks for adding that.. I only briefly touched on this at the end but really the problems are endless and i have been almost attacked by an angry homeless lady... Who i determined after hearing her story likely schizo or highly delusional (she thought the cia was taking nude pics of her daughter and prostituting her and her husband left her cuz of that).. Its important to understand and see if you can "feed a man for a lifetime" and at least be a little like a bodhisattva listening to their pain.

Instead of giving to beggars (which most likely would use money to buy alcohol), I give regularly money to few nonprofits helping causes which are important to me. I believe that such giving is more effective (accomplishes more good), and if someone ask for money, I can say: I already contributed $10 today.
I even read the article how ineffective is collecting food. If you give money instead, charity could:

(1) buy food for wholesale price, or even at discount from wholesale instead you paying retail
(2) volunteers would not waste time moving, sorting and packing it - could buy what is needed, when needed.

As a result, $10 in cash donation is about same value as $100 in kind.
Of course, politicians prefer moving boxes, because it makes better photo opportunities.

Interesting point about wholesale vs. retail. However casting beggars as alcoholics and politicians as cheaters (whether or not I agree) does reduce the professional tone preferred on this site.

OK I agree that some beggars do need the help - but do you have time to investigate which is which? Or will you spend your limited time and resources to give to organization which has the time and did the research?

Your question is valid on a conventional level, but on a Buddhist level, why should one have to decide such things? Within the scope of Buddhist teaching, does it benefit one's morality, concentration and wisdom?

But I know that contributing in kind is less effective help. Should I ignore such knowledge? I understand that giving immediately might feel more rewarding. Of course I am far away from any Buddhist level. But I want to do right things, contribute positively to the world.

I have to eat my words. By calling your answer unprofessional I'm being rather unprofessional. :-) but sure, don't ignore your knowledge about society if you want to benefit others. There is ascriptural reference I will give shortly, which reflects my original intention.

Or not. The other answers here more than do the question justice, as does yours. -1 becomes +1.

It is the thought or volition that counts underpinning the action.
If you do not give to baggers with good intention then this is acceptable. If you choose not to give may be you can be of more service to them by helping them make a living and also perhaps find employment.
If you give to beggars with good intention then this is also acceptable are you are practising generosity.
Generosity is not limited to material giving. It is a will and volition to the benevolence and betterment of others and acting upon it.

To add to Sankha's answer above - it is not as much whether to give or not to give, as it is about the right factor of prioritization. When you give to someone/anyone - person or organization - you support a certain program, certain idea, you help it go on, you help it do its thing, you help it affect the world in whatever way it affects the world.
According to Buddha (interpreting his words broadly, Mahayana-style), sponsoring the more virtuous programs is of greater benefit than sponsoring the less virtuous programs - therefore if there is competition for our sponsorship, if we have to choose - we should choose sponsoring the more virtuous programs, the more enlightened programs.
Of course, providing for the less fortunate is supporting a virtuous program already - no doubt about that. The question is, are there more virtuous programs that could benefit from our resources?
According to Buddha (again interpreting broadly, Mahayana-style), the programs that spread virtue and wisdom, and help reduce greed/hatred/confusion locally or globally, are a better long term investment of our resources IF we have to choose. That said, simply giving to beggars is still much better than doing nothing at all.

there is a simple answer to your question.
Lord Buddha said....

One should give when he has more
One should give when he has a lot
One should give when he has some
One should give when he has little

Lord Buddha said these four in an one sentence to inform the value of giving.
And asked to give in this manner.....

Plan to give with happiness in your mind
Give with happiness in your mind
Be happy about the giving afterwards and forever
Happily memorize what you gave

And went on to say these...
There is only one help to beings who roam in Samsara/Sansara,That is the good karma they have done.No good karma is small.
"Like a pot getting filled with small drops of water any good karma is an aid for one's path!"
Let me tell you a strange story....
One day people in a certain area planned a beautiful festival.A festival to worship a "Stupa" with flowers.

(A stupa)

Everyone found some to offer but a one lady.She could not find any because everyone has taken flowers so none was left.all she could find was a flower of an vegetable plant so she took it even though it was a bit unorthodox.She offered it and time went by.She died and when she opened her eyes she was in the "Deva Realm".When asked she was bit shy to reveal how she came there and to this day her story is the model story to explain to power of good deeds.
No matter how so unimportant or small something good you can do would appear just do it because no one knows when such a good deed would come in handy.

Yes one should give to beggars. Mahayana doctrine states we never know who could be a bodhisattva so we should treat all as the bodhisattva they could be. THIS INCLUDES NOT PAYING ATTENTION/NOTICING THE FAULTS OF OTHERS.
Give generously as though you had the opportunity to give to Lord Buddha Himself! Offer them a warm meal or hot tea. GIVE. Miserliness is destructive but can arise even to a bodhisattva.


text:
Is it possible to become a buddhist without a formal teacher?
I was reading a particular question about conversion.
This particular answer discusses how one converts to become a buddhist: How does conversion work in Buddhism?

First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you
  are truly a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you
  consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several
  years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher.

Is it possible to become a buddhist without a formal teacher or formal teaching? If so, does one just learn from online experiences and research?

Pretty much so. Buddhism is a path of personal growth, so you do what you feel it's best for your own development.
It's not something that I recommend, but you can even be a Buddhist and break all the precepts. The only requirement is that you mindfully explore the consequences of your actions (i.e. their kamma). Then you have a chance to learn why you are following the precepts, i.e. not because someone commanded you but because you know by personal experience.
If personal experience tells you that you need a teacher, then go for it. If you do better by personal research, then go for it. Experiment while always being mindful. That can never fail you.
Also read this: How does one become a lay Buddhist?

If you break all of the precepts, you would not be a practicing Buddhist, just a non-practicing one.

First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you
  are truly a Buddhist

This is wrong! The agreed upon definition is that when you take the triple refuge you are considered a Buddhist.
Yes, it is possible to become a Buddhist without a formal teacher as long as you understand taking refuge in the Triple gem. After that, the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha are your teachers.
Here are five ways to take refuge in the Triple Gem as per the Visuddhimagga:

Hi Sankha. Thanks for your answer. Could you elaborate a bit on the process of taking refuge in the triple gem?

@Harshani, added another link for you. It explains 5 ways of taking refuge.

Thank you very much Sankha:) I have been practicing for a long time now but have actually not taken refuge in the triple gem before. I do try to follow the 5 precepts as best as i can. Can i do no. 1, the chanting? Just by myself here in my room.

Yes, you can do #1 by yourself. Just like assuming the status of a pupil.

I took them now:) Now i will take the 5 precepts. Thanks for your help.

Seems like it would be challenging to take refuge in the sangha without having any in person experience with other buddhists. There are online sanghas of course, but it seems more challenging then daily meetings with a mentor and spending each day at a sangha surrounded by people who care and support you.

I think a better question is why you feel the need to become a Buddhist.  Self identification is just another form of attachment.  Why not just practice Buddhism and be done with it?  :-)

The Buddha encouraged people to formally take the Three Refuges and the Five Precepts.

Then do it!  But doing so just to call yourself a Buddhist is just an exercise in "this is me, this in mine, this is who I am".

The Buddha was never concerned about speculation like that.  He simply encouraged people to take the Refuges and the Five Precepts and practice them.  He was very down-to-earth and practical.

e.g. "Any kind of mental formations [sankhara] whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'  - Anatta-lakkhana Sutta  In this case, specifically the unwholesome sankharas of pride (I am a Buddhist) and covetousness (I want to be a Buddhist).

You were defining pride in a way that directly contradicts the Buddha's teachings.  I'd encourage you to read a nikaya or two.

@Tharpa If you want to post a comment which criticises an answer: 1) comment on the answer, but never try to disparage the person or user; 2) try to make it a constructive or a prescriptive criticism (your most recent comment would be clearer if you included a reference whichever definition of "pride" you're thinking of, and/or if it explained what the "direct contradiction" is); 3) stay on-topic i.e. ensure that your comments are discussing the answer, not discussing comments.

The Pali word for pride here is mada.  While it means pride, it also has the connotation of inebriation or drunkeness.  Literally "getting high on the idea of..."  So in this case, one is intoxicated by the idea of being Buddhist.  He arose after receiving the precepts.  "I am a Buddhist", he thought, smiling to himself.  His head felt three inches higher than it did before he knelt down to take the vows that formally made him a member of Buddha's long enduring sangha.

I started practicing Buddhism as a self-taught curious kid. And I got really into it when I found out that I had not to be affiliated to a certain institution: I had only to apply some concepts to my life and seek to make good.
IMHO you don't need to have a master/teacher to learn what Buddhism is really about, aside from its branches, and to start practicing it. But a teacher is really valuable, because we normally feel like sharing this experience to others, and because it is really hard to supress our ego.
The teacher will be there to share his experience but also listen. He will also be a constant reminder that we know too little and that we think too much.
I find it very nice to find others that follow Buddhism practices and to listen from their unique view and experience.

Good response, but just thought I'd point out that the only thing the Buddha said about ego was that it doesn't exist.  The idea that it's something to get rid of or suppress came 1000 years later.

The Buddha found the reality pertaining to our misery and the way out of it.
Anybody giving fair trial to the Buddha's practice or eradicating misery for one self can be considered a practising Buddhist. Some level of devotional acceptance of the teaching and the Sangha can also be considered Buddhists.
So most importantly is to develops some faith in the techniques and consider it your teacher and guide (without some faith you will not give it fair trial) then putting it to practice is the most important aspect off becoming a practising Buddhist.

It depends on what you mean "true" Buddhist. If you mean sincere, devoted, mindful and so on then of course.
Can you be enlightened? Yeah I think people say that, but only super super SUPER rarely!

The question is not how to become a buddhist; the aim is to get freed from our misery (dukkha). This is possible through realizing wisdom (panna).
Everyone can become enlightened. The Buddha has given us the tools; showed us the path, but everyone has to cultivate it himself or herself.
Ajahn Jayasaro (* Mindfulness, Precepts and Crashing in the Same Car p. 33-35 emphasized text*):

'The Buddha says we can find an inner refuge in which we become like
  an island unto ourselves, like a mountain which is unmoved by wind and
  rain and weather. This kind of stability and integrity of mind 'is not
  found by turning our backs on certain experiences and trying to create
  some special blissed-out state. If you practice meditation because
  you’re fed up with life, or you’re fed up with yourself, and you just
  want to go somewhere else where you don’t have to put up with all this
  stuff, then you’re already on the wrong path. That is the practice
  that may lead to heaven. But it’s not the practice for liberation.
You might be able to enter some heavenly realm where you can just
  close your eyes and feel good for a while, but the ability to do that
  is conditioned by health, by external circumstances and so on, and
  it’s not something we can ultimately rely upon. The immediate
  understanding of things as they are, of highs as highs, lows as lows,
  thoughts as thoughts, perceptions as perceptions, this is where the
  stability comes. We begin to see things less as solid entities, we
  perceive less in terms of personalities and people, and more and more
  in terms of a stream, a conditioned flow of phenomena.'

I would say that technically you could practice Buddhism without a teacher perhaps learning from book, blogs, videos etc... However from my own experience this didn't work very well. You will bring a lot of thoughts, opinions, stories and generally life baggage to your practice and your really need someone to help you sort this out. That might be a teacher or the sangha that grows up around a teacher.
From my own perspective I couldn't tell the difference between nihilism and Buddhism and this unnecessarily held me back. I trace this back to my own atheist background baggage. Conversely I know people with Christian backgrounds who struggled with perceived notions of sin in Buddhism and people with difficult family background who struggle with perceptions of purity. But whatever your background I would contend that a little help from your your (spiritual) teacher and friends would be a huge benefit.

I know what you mean. I come from a philosophical background of advaita, and struggled with the idea of anatta.

Instead of "sin", the Buddha taught about harmful actions (bad kamma) and beneficial actions (good kamma)

Buddha is only teacher of All Buddhist. But in this present lifestyle,timeless busy people need guidence, so Buddhist monk could help us, n useful here. Karuna,Shila,Metta are the pillers of Buddhism, so accept the pancashila in your day to day life, which helps a person to become a buddhist. It is not a Damma, Lord Buddha never produce any damma, he guided us a new way of lifestyle, which help us to enlightened inside.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

Yes, you can become a Buddhist without a formal teacher or formal training.  I would recommend real, paper, dead-tree books as opposed to online research.  Books on Buddhism tend to be of higher quality than some of the stuff you find online.
Eventually, however, I would encourage you to visit a monk (bhikkhu or bhikshu) or a nun (bhikkhuni or bhikshuni) at a temple.
I practiced Buddhism on my own for several years before I met any other Buddhists.

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


text:
Is it possible to set goals for the future and be present at the same time?
The future is not always tenable and capricious. Additionaly, if one is in the moment one shouldn’t be thinking about the future. To me, this seems like the two are mutually exclusive: to make goals and to be present.
Therefore, is it actually possible to be present but to think about the future at the same time? How does one reconcile having goals or making plans for the future?
It seems difficult to not plan for having children, planning a career, etc.

I don't see why we wouldn't be able to be present while thinking about the future. We do it all the  time. Mindfulness is all about doing whatever you do, but--wait for it--mindfully. After all, if we didn't think about the future we wouldn't be able to get up in the morning. What about making plans but (as you write) recognising that the nature of existence is capricious (anicca) and therefore it would be wise to avoid attachment to outcomes?

“Concentrate the mind on the present moment” is a significant distortion of what the Dhammapada literally says

Consider following texts:
Majjhima Nikaya (3.272)

‘The past should not be followed after, and the future not desired;
  what is past is dead and gone, and the future is yet to come.’

Wei Wu Wei ('Why Lazarus Laughed'):

‘Past and Future are a duality of which Present is the reality. The
  now-moment alone is eternal and real.’

Matthew Flickstein (* The Meditator’s Atlas. A Roadmap of the Inner World p. 157*:

‘The greatest enemy to the conditioned mind is the reality of the
  present moment. The mind is always trying to oppose this experience,
  since the mind only lives through thoughts of the past and the
  future.’

and Thich Nhat Hanh' ('Thich Nhat Hanh on the Practice of Mindfulness'):

‘Most people are forgetful; they are not really there [in the present
  moment] a lot of the time. Their mind is caught in their worries,
  their fears, their anger, and their regrets, and they are not mindful
  of being there. That state of being is called forgetfulness -you are
  there but you are not there. You are caught in the past or in the
  future. You are not there in the present moment, living your life
  deeply. That is forgetfulness.
The opposite of forgetfulness is mindfulness. Mindfulness is when you
  are truly there, mind and body together. You breathe in and out
  mindfully, you bring your mind back to your body, and you are there.
  When your mind is there with your body, you are established in the
  present moment. Then you can recognize the many conditions of
  happiness that are in you and around you, and happiness just comes
  naturally.
(...) Mindfulness is the energy that helps us recognize the conditions
  of happiness that are already present in our lives. You don’t have to
  wait ten years to experience this happiness. It is present in every
  moment of your daily life. There are those of us who are alive but
  don’t know it. But when you breathe in, and you are aware of your
  in-breath, you touch the miracle of being alive. That is why
  mindfulness is a source of happiness and joy.’

I think there are two separate things here - being and thinking. Thinking about the future is still a 'thought' like any other thought. Being in the present moment is a state of being, not a state of thought. Mindfulness includes thought, but is bigger and wiser than thought and probably kinder. The practice is not an attempt to stop you making plans, but to cultivate mindfulness where your plans have an overall ecology with your state of being, and therefore with those around you, with your environment or however your plans extend beyond just thinking. Just thinking about plans is really easy, but usually isn't good enough.

if one is in the moment one shouldn’t be thinking about the future
With mindfulness,Thinking about the future happens in the present moment.
is it actually possible to be present but to think about the future at the same time?
Yes.Just be aware.
Be aware when your thinking of the future.This means that you are aware of the present moment.If you have a hard time doing this think out loud.Saying the words will help your mind stay in the present moment.And stop it from wandering around and making connections with other thoughts.Being aware (no matter what the subject is) takes place in the present moment.Not the future.
I know you might think it's impossible to think and be mindful at the same time.You think that your in the present moment, then you have to pause to take a break and think.And this is not true.You have to train your mind,Mindfulness is like a muscle.You can be in the present moment while your thoughts are arising and to stay in the present moment while you watch your thoughts,your will,your intentions etc.It's just hard if your mindfulness is not trained.So don't think the two are separate.
How does one reconcile having goals or making plans for the future?
When you are in the present moment you see things clearly.Your grounded.You can make better plans for the future.When your not mindful of the actual process of planning what happens is,things go under the radar (subconscious) its taken over by force of habit,impulses,etc IGNORANCE. If you don't bring your thinking or planning into the surface of consciousness this means you are letting your future go with the flow of subconscious which at times isn't very rational.In fact it is planning your future in ignorance.Mindfulness is your clarity.
It seems difficult to not plan for having children, planning a career, etc.
It is difficult.Do not stop.Your goal is to plan things skillfully and you need mindfulness to do that.There's almost nothing you can not be aware of except for maybe deep states of sleep.
Be aware of planning and thinking.

You notice that your sink is leaking. Right now it is Sunday morning and a plumber would not be available. So you plan instead to call a plumber the next day. So here, you are making a plan for the future.
Is it right to make and execute this plan? Yes. After all, you must solve the problem.
Then when is it not right? It is not right if you spend the rest of Sunday worrying or dwelling upon your leaking sink. This is where you need to practise mindfulness.
Similarly, I don't see why one cannot make and execute plans for career, family etc. It is just that one cannot keep thinking about it over and over with attachment and with emotions like passion or aversion.
Of course, if you have to make plans regarding career, family etc., it means that you still have desires for a worldly life (instead of the monastic life), which by itself is not wrong if it follows the Noble Eightfold Path, including Right Livelihood.
Planning and doing something is different from having one's mind always obsessed with that something.

No. It isn't.
Thinking about the future, past or any form of ideation (false thought) are opposite of becoming present. Becoming truly present automatically causes things to empty out and detach. The mind clears.
In a practical sense it is not possible to be full of thought and be empty (present) at the same time and in an ontological sense as well because there is only ever one thought, one phenomena happening at any moment in time.
After a high level cultivation, the cultivated person can "think without thoughts" by using a type of direct perception called prajna but that is an advanced discussion that is not directly relevant to your questioning.
The thing you are talking about "thinking about the future", planning, and the process of making right of your life... this is called the 1st training.
It is very important to have the 1st training down well.
Nonetheless, it is very different from the purpose and method of the other two trainings that the Buddha espoused: the 2nd and 3rd training, the development of which brings you even deeper into the present... so deep that you find the heart of reality and many Good Things Happen.
There is a mutual beneficial interaction among the 3 trainings and respectively with the whole idea of planning for the future and learning to live in the present namely because if you do not plan for the future, the future--when it does inevitably arrive--will be quite uncomfortable and not conducive to Enlightenment.
For the most clean and detailed emphasis on the Three Trainings and other crucial Buddhist sets, I reccommend the free book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha. 99% of what people do is the 1st training (planning, thinking, reflecting, thinking about what to do how to do it).
The 2nd and 3rd training are what Buddhism is truly about and is mainly involved with coming to the heart of reality: the present moment. In order to do it one doesn't plan or think... one just does it. Just be present.
With practice, this becomes very enjoyable.
With more practice this automatically becomes jhana/vipassana practice.

If I may answer your question by disputing the premise. In his book Antidote (not a Buddhist book) Oliver Burkeman questions the wisdom of goal setting itself. He takes the dramatic example of the 1996 Everest disaster to illustrate goals and goal setting gone badly and fatally wrong. In a more general and easy going passage he asks why shouldn't one be more like a frog on a lily pad. You sit for a while, enjoy the view, eat a few insects, get bored then move onto another lily pad. You don't set a goal to be on the biggest lily pad by the time you're 40 (in frog years).
Mindfulness in the present moment might well be incompatible with goals. It probably is. But if it is then it's the goals that are the problem not the present moment.


text:
buddha and me (my will to accept all from buddism)
I am looking for something unknown, not known to me very clearly. Maybe it is ultimate peace or harmony or empathy or sympathy or state of nirvana or supermundane advantage or all of these. Somehow I feel that I can get all of them by following the rules stated in Buddhism. So I want to know what kind of relation I should accept between me and Buddha? Who I am, a student or a master, and if death is somehow the only end then where, or at which level, do I need to be awakened?

I try to ask a clarifying question. You consider your life as incomplete or imperfect, and in order to overcome this you are searching for unknown; you hope that Buddhism is the key, so you are interested to establish some relations with you and Buddhism and with Buddha personally, like Tiratana?

This looks like a very important issue for you, but we need very specific questions on SE. Can you try to be more specific, or break the question up into many? For example, "How can Buddhism help me find what I'm looking for?" And "how much commitment is necessary?" Etc.

That being said, I think you would benefit from finding a meditation teacher.

I'm not sure what you mean by "relation... to the Buddha".

...Perhaps observing and meditating following texts would help:
Itivuttaka (4.111):

‘Above, across or back again, wherever one goes in the world let one
  carefully scrutinise the rise and fall of compounded things.’

Dhammapada (20.277)

‘Impermanent are all compounded things. When one senses this with true
  insight, then one becomes detached from suffering; this is the path of
  purification.’

and this beautiful text of Jane Hirschfield (in the PBS-documentary film 'The Buddha')

‘There is water in a river; and there is water in a glass.  And then
  the water is back in the air; and then it is back in the river.  The
  water is there but what is it? That’s a way to think about the self in
  Buddha’s own.  One moment you’re angry; the next moment you are
  laughing.  Who are you? The self comes and the self goes. Simply
  notice how, from one moment to another, your self is actually not as
  much the same as we think it is.’’

I personally wouldn't worry about such details and labels of who is who and what status everyone is. I would recommend you read, " The Noble Eightfold Path"( conceptual understanding) accompanied with Vipassana meditation (experiential realization). Work your way through the teachings of the NEP, and you will remove your own ignorance.
I would still recommend asking monks for detailed help, but what i have mentioned above, that will be a very good starting point for you, if you are serious about the practice!
I hope i have helped!
Metta


text:
Is Goenka's "Freeflow of sensations" the same as pīti?
In the S.N. Goenka vipassana tradition the meditator tries to reach a 'freeflow' of sensations on and in the body. Is this 'freeflow' comparable with Pīti?

Not familiar with Goenka but is this "freeflow" a generally positive feeling?
Also in the case of the "freeflow" in the Goenka tradition is this freeflow to be eventually let go?

Yes.
Free flow is loosely used for Piti. Initially it is subtle vibrations which you feel. As you practice this spreads to your body. These vibrations are pleasant.

Would you be so kind to dig a bit deeper. Thanks

The free flow is when the whole body dissolves into subtle vibrations, and you reach the stage of bhanga, total dissolution. It causes pīti (pleasant sensation, rapture, bliss) and if not careful you can develop attachment to it.


text:
How did bells become a part of Buddhist ritual?
Bells seem to be pervasive throughout Buddhist ritual. I get the impression that many monasteries ring a large bell in the morning, and other monasteries still ring regular bells throughout the day to encourage mindfulness. Most meditation apps on smartphones have a bell-ringing sound.
Where did this come from? What other usage do bells have in Buddhist ritual? Are there references to bells in canonical texts?
Answers from all sects appreciated.

A "bell" is mentioned in the Visuddhimagga.
In this translation it says,

And, though sometimes not separate, applied thought is the first impact of
  the mind in the sense that it is both gross and inceptive, like the striking of a bell.
  Sustained thought is the act of keeping the mind anchored, in the sense that it is
  subtle with the individual essence of continued pressure, like the ringing of the
  bell. Applied thought intervenes, being the interference of consciousness at the
  time of first arousing [thought], like a bird’s spreading out its wings when
  about to soar into the air, and like a bee’s diving towards a lotus when it is
  minded to follow up the scent of it. The behaviour of sustained thought is quiet,
  being the near non-interference of consciousness, like the bird’s planing with
  outspread wings after soaring into the air, and like the bee’s buzzing above the
  lotus after it has dived towards it

A 'bell' is even mentioned in the Dhammapada,

134. If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.

At least in Sri Lanka bells are used as a "call" to gather everyone at the temple to signal the start of an event.
In some cases like in Siripada as a means to announce how many times you have visited.


text:
Dharma-ending age in suttas and solution?
What are signs of the dharma-ending age according to the sutras and is there a solution?

Below is "Exhortation to Protect and Propagate" by Tripitaka Master Hsuan Hua, prefacing the  "Shurangama Sutra."

Within Buddhism, there are very many important sutras. However, the
  most important Sutra is the Shurangama Sutra. If there are places
  which have the Shurangama Sutra, then the Proper Dharma dwells in the
  world. If there is no Shurangama Sutra, then the Dharma Ending Age
  appears. Therefore, we Buddhist disciples, each and every one, must
  bring our strength, must bring our blood, and must bring our sweat to
  protect the Shurangama Sutra. In the Sutra of the Ultimate
  Extinction of the Dharma, it says very, very clearly that in the
  Dharma Ending Age, the Shurangama Sutra is the first to disappear, and
  the rest of the sutras disappear after it. If the Shurangama Sutra
  does not disappear, then the Proper Dharma Age is present. Because of
  that, we Buddhist disciples must use our lives to protect the
  Shurangama Sutra, must use vows and resolution to protect the
  Shurangama Sutra, and cause the Shurangama Sutra to be known far and
  wide, reaching every nook and cranny, reaching into each and every
  dust-mote, reaching out to the exhaustion of empty space and of the
  Dharma Realm. If we can do that, then there will be a time of Proper
  Dharma radiating great light.
Why would the Shurangama Sutra be destroyed? It is because it is too
  true. The Shurangama Sutra is the Buddha’s true body. The Shurangama
  Sutra is the Buddha’s sharira. The Shurangama Sutra is the Buddha’s
  true and actual stupa and shrine. Therefore, because the Shurangama
  Sutra is so true, all the demon kings use all kinds of methods to
  destroy the Shurangama Sutra. They begin by starting rumors, saying
  that the Shurangama Sutra is phony. Why do they say the Shurangama
  Sutra is phony? It is because the Shurangama Sutra speaks too truly,
  especially in the sections on The Four Decisive Deeds, the Twenty-five
  Sages Describing Perfect Penetration, and the States of the Fifty
  Skandha Demons. Those of off-center persuasions and
  externally-oriented ways, weird demons and strange freaks, are unable
  to stand it. Consequently there are a good many senseless people who
  claim that the Shurangama Sutra is a forgery.
Now, the principles set forth in the Shurangama Sutra are on the one
  hand proper, and on the other in accord with principle, and the weird
  demons and strange freaks, those in various cults and sects, all
  cannot hide away their forms. Most senseless people, in particular
  unwise scholars and garbage-collecting professors “Tread upon the holy
  writ.” With their extremely scant and partial understanding, they are
  confused and unclear, lacking real erudition and true and actual
  wisdom. That is why they falsely criticize. We who study the
  Buddhadharma should very deeply be aware of these circumstances.
  Therefore, wherever we go, we should bring up the Shurangama Sutra.
  Wherever we go, we should propagate the Shurangama Sutra. Wherever we
  go, we should introduce the Shurangama Sutra to people. Why is that?
  It is because we wish to cause the Proper Dharma long to dwell in the
  world.
If the Shurangama Sutra is regarded as true, then there is no problem.
  To verify its truth, let me say that if the Shurangama Sutra were
  phony, then I would willingly fall into the hells forever through all
  eternity—for being unable to recognize the Buddhadharma—for mistaking
  the false for true. If the Shurangama Sutra is true, then life after
  life in every time I make the vow to propagate the Great Dharma of the
  Shurangama, that I shall in every time and every place propagate the
  true principles of the Shurangama.
Everyone should pay attention to the following point. How could the
  Shurangama Sutra not have been spoken by the Buddha? No one else could
  have spoken the Shurangama Sutra. And so I hope that all those people
  who make senseless accusations will wake up fast and stop creating the
  causes for suffering in the Hell of Pulling Out Tongues. No matter who
  the scholar is, no matter what country students of the Buddhadharma
  are from, all should quickly mend their ways, admit their mistakes,
  and manage to change. There is no greater good than that. I can then
  say that all who look at the Shurangama Sutra, all who listen to the
  Shurangama Sutra, and all who investigate the Shurangama Sutra, will
  very quickly accomplish Buddhahood.
Composed by Gold Mountain Shramana Tripitaka Master Hua Translated by
  Bhikshuni Heng Hsien Reviewed by Shramanerika Heng Wen

The answer to the first part of the question is provided in the sutra that is mentioned in bold in the above quote.
Below is the sutra:

The Buddha Speaks the Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma Sutra
Thus I have heard. At one time the Buddha was in the state of
  Kushinagara. The Tathagata was to enter nirvana within three months
  and the bhikshus and Bodhisattvas as well as the great multitude of
  beings had come to pay homage to the Buddha and to bow in reverence.
  The World Honored One was tranquil and silent. He spoke not a word and
  his light did not appear. Worthy Ananda bowed and asked the Buddha,
”0 Bhagavan, heretofore whenever you spoke the Dharma, awesome light
  would naturally appear. Yet today among this great assembly there is
  no such radiance. There must be a good cause for this and we wish to
  hear the Bhagavan’s explanation.”
The Buddha remained silent and did not answer until the request had
  been repeated three times. He then told Ananda,
”After I enter nirvana, when the Dharma is about to perish, during the
  evil age of the five turbidities, the way of demons will flourish.
  Demonic beings will become shramanas; they will pervert and destroy my
  teachings. Monastics will wear the garb of laypersons and will prefer
  handsome clothes. Their precept sashes will be made of multi-colored
  cloth. They will use intoxicants, eat meat, kill other beings and they
  will indulge in their desire for flavorful food. They will lack
  compassion and they will bear hatred and exhibit jealousy even among
  themselves.
”Even then Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arhats will reverently
  and diligently cultivate immaculate virtue. They will be respected by
  all people and their teachings will be fair and egalitarian. These
  cultivators of the Way will take pity on the poor, they will be
  mindful of the aged, and they will save and give counsel to those
  people they find in difficult circumstances. They will at all times
  exhort others to worship and to protect sutras and images of the
  Buddha. They will do meritorious deeds, be resolute and kind, and
  never harm others. They will make physical sacrifices for others’
  benefit. They will hold no great regard for themselves but will be
  patient, yielding, humane, and peaceful.
”As long as such people exist, the hordes of demonic bhikshus will be
  jealous of them. The demons will harass them, slander and defame them,
  expel them from their midst and degrade them. They will ostracize the
  good monks from the monastic community. Thereafter these demons derive
  no virtue from their practice. Their monastic buildings will be vacant
  and overgrown with weeds. For want of care and maintenance their
  Way-places will drift into ruin and oblivion. The demonic bhikshus
  will increase their greed for wealth and will amass great heaps of
  goods. They will refuse to distribute any of it or to use it to gain
  blessings and virtue.
”At this time, the evil monks will buy and sell slaves to till their
  fields and to slash and burn the mountain forests. They will do harm
  to living creatures and they will feel not the least bit of
  compassion. These slaves will themselves become bhikshus and
  maidservants will become bhikshunis. Totally lacking in Way-virtue,
  these people will run amok, indulging in licentious behavior. In their
  turbid confusion they will fail to separate the men from the women in
  the monastic communities.
From this generation on, the Way will be weakened. Fugitives from the
  law will seek refuge in my Way, wishing to be shramanas but failing to
  observe the moral regulations. Monastics will continue to recite the
  precepts twice a month, but in name alone. Being lazy and lax, no one
  will want to listen any longer. These evil shramanas will be unwilling
  to recite the sutras in their entirety and they will make
  abbreviations at the beginning and at the end of the texts as they
  please. Soon the practice of reciting sutras will stop altogether.
  Even if there are people who recite texts, they will be unlettered,
  unqualified people who will insist, nonetheless, that they are
  correct. Bumptious, arrogant, and vain, these people will seek fame
  and glory. They will put on airs in the hope of attracting offerings
  from other people.
”When the lives of these demonic bhikshus come to an end their
  essential spirits will fall into the Avichi Hell. Having committed the
  five evil deeds, they will suffer successive rebirths as hungry ghosts
  and as animals. They will know all such states of woe as they pass on
  through eons as numerous as sands on the banks of the Ganges River.
  When their offenses are accounted for they will be reborn in a border
  land where the Triple Jewel is unknown.
”When the Dharma is about to disappear, women will become vigorous and
  will at all times do deeds of virtue. Men will grow lax and will no
  longer speak the Dharma. Those who are genuine shramanas will be
  looked upon as dung and no one will have faith in them. When the
  Dharma is about to perish, all the gods will begin to weep. Rivers
  will dry up and the five grains will not ripen. Pestilences will
  frequently take millions of lives. The masses will toil and suffer
  while the local officials will plot and scheme. No one will adhere to
  principles. Instead, the human race will multiply, becoming like the
  sands of the ocean-bed.
Good persons will be hard to find; at most there will be one or two.
  As the eon comes to a close, the revolutions of the sun and the moon
  will grow short and the lifespan of people will decrease. Their hair
  will turn white by the time they are forty. Because of excessive
  licentious behavior they will quickly exhaust their seminal fluids and
  will die at a young age, usually before sixty years. As the lifespan
  of males decreases, that of females will increase to seventy, eighty,
  ninety, or one hundred years.
”The mighty rivers will flood and lose harmony with their natural
  cycles, yet people will not take notice or feel concern. Extremes of
  climate will soon be taken for granted. Beings of all races will mix
  together at random, without regard for the noble and the mean. Their
  births and rebirths will cause them to sink and float, like feeding
  aquatic creatures.
”Even then Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arhats will gather
  together in an unprecedented assembly because they will all have been
  harried and pursued by the hordes of demons. They will no longer dwell
  in the assemblies but the Three Vehicles will retreat to the
  wilderness. In a tranquil place they will find shelter, happiness, and
  long life. Gods will protect them and the moon will shine down upon
  them. The Three Vehicles will have an opportunity to meet together and
  the Way will flourish.
However, within fifty-two years the Shurangama Sutra and the
  Pratyutpanna [Standing Buddha] Samadhi, will be the first to change
  and then to disappear. The twelve divisions of the canon will
  gradually follow until they vanish completely, never to appear again.
  Its words and texts will be totally unknown ever after. The precept
  sashes of shramanas will turn white of themselves. When my Dharma
  disappears it will be just like an oil lamp that flares brightly for
  an instant just before it goes out. So too, will the Dharma flare and
  die. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what
  will follow.
”A period of ten million years will follow before the time when
  Maitreya is about to appear in the world to become the next Buddha. At
  that time the planet will be entirely peaceful. Evil vapors will have
  dissipated, rain will be ample and regular, and crops will grow
  abundantly. Trees will grow to a great height and people will grow to
  be eighty feet tall. The average lifespan will extend to 84,000 years.
  It will be impossible to count all the beings who will be taken across
  to liberation.”
Worthy Ananda addressed the Buddha, “What should we call this Sutra
  and how shall we uphold it?”
The Buddha said, “Ananda, this sutra is called The Ultimate Extinction
  of the Dharma. Tell everyone to propagate it widely; the merit of your
  actions will be measureless, beyond reckoning.”
When the four-fold assembly of disciples heard this sutra they grieved
  and wept. Each of them resolved to attain the true path of the Supreme
  Sage. Then bowing to the Buddha, they withdrew.
End of The Buddha Speaks the Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma Sutra.
From the Seng You Records, translator anonymous. Appended to the Song
  Annals.

Is there a solution?
The solution once again is as Master Hsuan Hua says in the top-most quote: to protect the first to disappear sutra: The Surangama Sutra.
It is a gem of an exegesis of the Shakyamuni's original teachings and a consummating addition to Theravadin sutras...

Solution is simple as long the practice is kept up then the Dhamma will not end.So you have to practice the 3 fold training and gain peace. Then teach others also what you praticed to get peace.

There's another possibility. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist, but apparently they were converted by the invading conquerors, and recently, the Bamiyan Buddha statues destroyed. So, it could also be that the Buddhists become forcibly converted and their texts destroyed.

One who practice the Dhamma is protected by the Dhamma. So if the practice was strong and done by the whole population then the results might have been different.

Was this said by the Buddha? "One who practice the Dhamma is protected by the Dhamma"

dhammo hawe rakkathi dhammachari


text:
What are the Three Trainings and how are they practical?
What are the Three Trainings and how are they practical?
Specifically how does one practice them?

The threefold training (Pali: sikkha) consists of: morality (sila); concentration (samadhi); and wisdom (panna).
Sikkha is meant to conquer and eradicate the defilements (kilesas).
Visuddhimagga XXII,49

'The defilements are the ten states, namely: greed; hate; delusion;
  conceit; false view; uncertainty; stiffness of mind; agitation;
  conciencelessness, shamelessness. They are so called because they are
  themselves defiled and because they defile their associated states.'

Each of those defilements has 3 stages (bhumi) which are identical to the 3 stages of consciousness (latent - manifested - action).

the latent stage = anusaya-bhumi
the manifest stage = pariyutthana-bhumi
the action stage = vitikkama-bhumi

Through the threefold training, it is possible to conquer and eradicate these defilements in the 3 subsequent stages: sila-sikkha; samadhi-sikkha; and panna-sikkha.
The training itself is a strict personal affair: Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one can purify another (Dhammapada).

The Three (Higher) Trainings are:
Ethics
Concentration
Wisdom
The practice of ETHICS entails abandoning negative actions of body, speech and mind (such as killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, intoxicating the body, harmful speech, greed, etc). And cultivating virtuous actions of body, speech and mind (generosity, patience, gentle speech, etc).
The practice of CONCENTRATION entails developing single-pointed attention on a meditative object (such as the sensations of the breath, a mental image, thoughts and the space of the mind, etc) by cultivating relaxation, stability and vividness. There are 9 stages for the this practice (shamatha) and the culmination is a refined mind that experiences bliss, clarity and non-conceptuality. At this point you are able to focus your attention effortless for long periods (4 hours or more) without any distraction or internal chit-chat, this state is called samadhi.
The practice of WISDOM entails, gaining insight into the nature of reality, this means understanding experientially and not only conceptually how all phenomena and oneself exist. Everything exists as an interdependent matrix of causes and effects, and everything is empty of inherent existence.
The first step is to begin practicing the Four Applications of Mindfulness:
Applied Mindfulness to the body, feelings, mental events and phenomena. These practices imply not only being mindful of the body sensations, thoughts, etc, but also to develop wisdom by questioning if these things exist as we perceive them or if they are impermanent, interdependent and lacking an inherent, real, solid existence. After becoming good at these practices you can also practice analytical meditation, debate, and Dream yoga to start questioning the solidity of what you call reality.These practices are called Vipashyana and one applies them also to the I, until one finds that one doesn't exist as an independent ego, but as a matrix of interrelated phenomena and that we also lack inherent existence. There's a risk here to think we don't exist at all and becoming depressed or nihilistic, so it's important to practice also Dzogchen, Mahamudra or similar practice to understand and realize that we are pure awareness and by recognizing this primordial consciousness we transcend the concepts of existence and non-existence and we become enlightened.
This insights can only be sustained if you have achieved single-pointed concentration (shamatha) first, otherwise with an unbalanced, wandering mind trying to develop wisdom is not possible. And concentration can only be achieved if one lives an ethical way of life, because a mind that is filled with mental afflictions such as anger, craving, greed, attachment, ignorance, arrogance, etc, is a wandering mind unable to find peace and develop concentration, furthermore an afflictive mind is ignorant and unable to develop wisdom.

The Three Trainings in Buddhism are the most important, organizing feature in Buddhism.
Everything that is not related to the 2nd and 3rd training is called the 1st training: morality.
This is related to learning to live life correctly, having Right Livelihood, developing communication skills with others, forgiving others, thinking about how to enjoy time with friends, choosing friends, etc.
Basically, success in the 1st training means doing good in the world, for ourselves and others.
The best way to understand what the 1st training is, is to understand the 2nd and 3rd trainings and understand that the 1st training is what the 2nd and 3rd training is not. These latter two trainings have a much simpler definitions and are also very important in spiritual growth because they are very much in our locus-of-control.
The 2nd training is concentration.
This training involves any meditation practice which makes one calmer, more blissful and directed towards the five qualities of jhana.
The success in this training contains mastery of the entire range of form and formless jhanas.
The 3rd training is wisdom.
This training is synonymous with vipassana and involves any meditation practice which trains one in becoming more present and noticing of the 3 Characteristics.
The success in this training contains mastery of the Stages of Insight, which has a continuous and recursive process to it and blossoms in Awakening/Fruition.
Since the 2nd and 3rd training deal with samatha and vipassana meditation respectively, the 1st training, as mentioned earlier, deals with the good work we do in the rest of our lives.
This is a wonderful organizing structure because of the fact that most of what we do in our daily lives falls into the 1st training and this type of understanding can help us prioritize. For example, participating on SE Buddhism, conversing with online forums, and participating in a local Sangha is the 1st training and we should continue to do so... but we should neglect our Practice, namely the 2nd and 3rd training.
The Three Trainings are also mutually supportive of each other and improving in any training is definitely going to cause an improvement in the other trainings so they should all be worked on simultaneously. This mutual support raises more interest questions like what category does brahma meditation would fall under? and why does vipassana sometimes seem like jhana?
It's not the point to categorize everything into this system. What's important is that one not be too involved in the 1st training and realize that the training in concentration and wisdom are very important in Buddhism and lead directly to the goal of Buddhism.
Also these two trainings take a lot of time (e.g. 3 year meditation retreats).
For more info on this idea see "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha."


text:
Which text does the four sights story come from?
One of the most famous stories of the Buddha is that of the four sights in which the Buddha sees old age, sickness death and a monk for the first time. However I read that this story doesn't actually occur in the Pali Canon. Can anyone give the reference for the text or texts that this story does occur in.
Also since it doesn't appear in the Pali Canon is it reasonable to suppose that it might have less historical accuracy then other events in the Pali Canon. After all if it had of occurred wouldn't the Buddha have told Ananda at some point who would have then recounted when the storied were been collected after the Buddha's death. This is of a side point really - and probably unnecessarily contraversial.

Literary Sources of the Buddha Legend says,

In the early Pali sources, the legendary account of the four sights is only described with respect to a previous legendary Buddha Vipassī (Mahāpadāna Sutta, DN 14).[13] In the later works Nidanakatha, Buddhavamsa and the Lalitavistara Sūtra, the account was consequently also applied to Siddhārtha Gautama.

The "Mahāpadāna Sutta, DN 14" isn't one of the suttas translated in the Digha Nikaya section of accesstoinsight.

There is an English-language translation of it here: http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Maha-padana_Sutta
I don't know what current scholarship says. This paper from 1914 starts with,

To students of Buddhism and Comparative  Religion
          desirous  of knowing Buddha's  own views and teaching
          from his own words, it is extremely disconcerting  to
          find that the Pali Canon can no longer be regarded as
          the actual "Word" and Doctrine of Buddha himself.

... and goes on to claim that the doctrine that there were previous Buddhas was invented after the historical Buddha's death,

The theory  that former  human  Buddhas  preceded
          Gotama, although  generally  accepted  as an integral
          part of Buddha's  Buddhism, seems  to me to have been
          invented  after  the Buddha's  death.

... which would imply that DN 14 were a later invention.

Possibly a later development based on AN 3.39. In that sutta, the Buddha didn't explicitly mention He saw those signs but the ideas were there:

...Amid such splendor and a delicate life, it occurred to me: ‘An uninstructed worldling, though himself subject to old age, not exempt from old age, feels repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when he sees another who is old, overlooking his own situation. Now I too am subject to old age and am not exempt from old age. Such being the case, if I were to feel repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when seeing another who is old, that would not be proper for me.’ When I reflected thus, my intoxication with youth was completely abandoned...

On my memory, it first appears in the Buddhacarita, the earliest "full biography" of the Buddha, written by Asvaghosha around 100-150 CE.

I'm not sure when the story of the four sights was first mentioned but it definitely doesn't seem to be a part of the early texts. The Devaduta Sutta mentions that seeing a baby, old person,  sick person, a person punished, and a corpse as all being a kind of message sent to humanity to be reflected on, so perhaps some of this was interpolated into the biography.
Personally I don't think the traditional biographies have much historical merit. The earliest texts we have don't mention a lot of these kinds of things, and a lot of the embellishments are also found in the biographies of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism so I think there was probably a lot of borrowing of folk traditions. I think that these stories are very useful as a source of moral inspiration, but I think that they are very weak as a source of actual history.